Who is benefiting from the oil rich Bakassi Peninsula?

Introduction:

The controversial handover of the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was a just decision, based on International Law; and the dictates of the former colonial masters as per their partition of Africa between 1884 and 1885. The main problem of contention here does not only rest on legal ownership of the Peninsular but should have rested on both natural and legal aspects of this complicated human settlement in a continent so disunited and so orderly disorganized that simple things cannot be solved within but by strangers who don’t even know about the dynamics and demography of the region they are adjudicating on. In which case the element of care is none existent. I mean care about the real people truly caught in the situation – crisis situation. Were the inhabitants of the Bakassi peninsula properly, humanely, fairly and justly treated? I believe the answer resonates even in the minds and brains of the political elites of both Cameroon and Nigeria and that answer is a big NO. I am not here to condemn the ICJ or it judgement, but to re-examine the content and context of its general judgement, in relation to the plight and the future of the Bakassi natives. The ICJ is undoubtedly a very beautiful world instrument, if properly used and properly managed. All in all, for the Bakassi people, I feel strongly the court ignored them or something close to that.

Brief History of the Peninsula: 

A kingdom was founded in Bakassi around 1450 by the Efik of coastal South-Eastern Nigeria, and was incorporated within the political framework of Calabar Kingdom, along with Southern Cameroons. During the European scramble for Africa, Queen Victoria signed a Treaty of Protection with the King and Chiefs of Calabar on 10 September 1884. This enabled the United Kingdom to exercise control over the entire territory of Calabar, including Bakassi. The territory subsequently became de facto part of the republic of Nigeria, although the border was never permanently delineated. Interestingly, even after Southern Cameroons voted in 1961 to leave Nigeria and became a part of Cameroon, Bakassi remained under Calabar administration in Nigeria until ICJ judgment of 2002. The people settled in Bakassi, before the Bakassi problem began, were neither Nigerians nor Cameroonians. They were simply Bakassi people, even before the coming of the Portuguese explorers.  Bakassi people are mainly the Calabar people, the people of Cross River State and Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria, including the Efik, Ibibio,Annang and some other smaller ethnic groups.. The Portuguese explorers, if they were alive today or if they wrote any piece of history, would have attested and even confirmed the fact that there were fishermen and fishing activities in the peninsula before their arrival. And that during their exploration, the search for new markets and their quest for new territories abroad; they met and saw people living in Bakassi, before the nation Cameroon and Nigeria were founded. Even after the founding of these two nations, the Bakassi peninsula was a semi-independent territory or a neglected piece of land at sea; between the two independent nations. Although it was meant to be a part of Cameroon, as it has now proven to be. But it was neglected by Cameroon; as a result it was incorporated and ruled as part of Calabar by Nigeria. It was neglected or appeared abandoned by Cameroon, until the apparent discovery of crude oil and natural gas transformed it, into one of the main hotspots in West Africa. Furthermore the case was extremely complex, requiring the court to review diplomatic exchanges dating back over 100 years. Nigeria relied largely on Anglo-German correspondence dating from 1885 as well as treaties between the colonial powers and the indigenous rulers in the area, particularly the 1884 Treaty of Protection. Cameroon pointed to the Anglo-German treaty of 1913, which defined spheres of control in the region, as well as two agreements signed in the 1970s between Cameroon and Nigeria. These were the Yaoundé II Declaration of 4 April 1971 and the Maroua Declaration of 1 June 1975, which were devised to outline maritime boundaries between the two countries following their independence. The line was drawn through the Cross River estuary to the west of the peninsula, thereby implying Cameroonian ownership over Bakassi. However, Nigeria never ratified the agreement, which Cameroon regarded as being in-force. Could it be possible that the Nigerian ruling elites were just trying to con the Bakassi people for their own selfish interest? That they were not truly interested in the plight of the Bakassi people? That all they were looking for was the acquisition and ownership of the peninsula for oil exploration and other selfish geopolitical interest? It seems they never sincerely went into negotiations, either with Cameroon or the ICJ with the best interests of the Bakassi people at heart. Apparently their main aim and interest were purely strategic and geopolitical, by calming that all the Bakassi people were Nigerians. The fact is that not all the people living in the Bakassi Peninsula are from Nigeria. Many are Bakassi indigenes or Natives and many have made Bakassi their natural homeland through incessant and continuous abode.  The fact is that Nigeria claiming ownership of all the People of the Bakassi Peninsula and the Peninsula itself technically destroyed all reasonable grounds for a correct, humane and fair judgement through the ICJ, since that territory is legitimately and now legally Cameroonian. These Nigerian claims made the position of the people of Bakassi people unattainable. However, lots of Bakassi people running into Nigeria for protection provided concrete evidence of their choice of nationality in the eyes of Cameroonians and the Yaoundé administration. This might have led to an unsympathetic approach from the Cameroonian government, leading to or creating so much violence and harassment for others who dare to remain in the peninsula. The Bakassi people are simply the people of the Bakassi peninsula. They were neither Nigerians nor Cameroonians, at the time of the dispute. Whoever won the Bakassi peninsula was supposed to own its people as well. Whatever is annexed to a land becomes part of the land or is part of the land (could be well applicable, in this situation). So therefore, if the Bakassi peninsula was finally transferred to Cameroon, the people of Bakassi were supposed to automatically, become Cameroonians. Not immigrants, but the natives of the land.  Normally qualifying immigrants could gain citizenship of any country of abode after certain duration of legal settlement as per existing immigration rules of the said territory. However, this is almost impossible in so many African countries, due to no constitutional provisions on immigration or due to the existence of sham constitutions.

Citizenship of Bakassi People

The natives of Bakassi (the indigenes) should have become Cameroonian citizens automatically after the ICJ’s judgment and the handing over of the territory to the Cameroonian administration. Who prevented this from happening, and why, is a question, yet to be answered.  

The International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) verdict: 

The ICJ delivered its judgment on 10 October 2002. Its findings were based principally on the Anglo-German agreements that sovereignty over Bakassi did indeed rest with Cameroon. It instructed Nigeria to transfer possession of the peninsula, but did not require the inhabitants to move or to change their nationality. Nationality? This was a very grey area; since both Nigeria, Cameroon and even the ICJ were not interested in this area, the clarification of nationality in relation to the Bakassi people – the natives of Bakassi. This was a complete betrayal of the people of Bakassi. Apparently, Cameroon was thus given a substantial Nigerian population and was required to protect their rights, infrastructure and welfare. This was a miscarriage of justices. This assertion is proving or has now proven to be right. In my opinion, they should have been declared Cameroonian by the court’s Judgment, even if the judgment would not have pleased the people, the Nigerian and even the Cameroonian administration. This would have been a fair, complete and uncomplicated judgment. Time would have proven this to be a perfect or even a divine judgment similar to those recorded in the bible delivered by Solomon King of Israel. As a matter of fact, If the ICJ was prepared to grant justice to Africans, justice would be been proper justice. So to speak the right judgment would have guaranteed the people’s future and their children-children’s future. But as it is often the case in international arena, things concerning Africa and African are always made to look complicated and even made worse as if Africa is a part of a different universe than the one we are meant to all live in today. There could have been a humane judgement and the United Nations (UN) could have properly monitored the implementation of this judgment because the situation was very fragile. Cameroon and Nigeria were literally and technically at war. The plight of the Bakassi people could have been appropriated taken into consideration. The question now is  - was the ICJ in anyway working for the geopolitical interest of super powers involved indirectly in this region through multinational corporations engage in oil exploration and exploitation or what?  I feel strongly the court might have erred in this matter, no matter what its considerations were.  

Judgement not in line with Human Rights covenants:

The UN, whose charter potentially allows for sanctions or even the use of force to enforce the court’s ruling, backed up the ICJ judgment. Secretary-General Kofi Annan stepped in as a mediator and chaired a tripartite summit with the two countries' presidents on 15 November 2002, which established a commission to facilitate the peaceful implementation of the ICJ's judgment. A further summit was held on 31 January 2004. There were significant progress made, but the opposition of Bakassi inhabitants to being transferred to Cameroon complicated the process. Bakassi leaders threatened to seek independence if Nigeria renounced sovereignty. This secession was announced on 9 July 2006, as the ‘Democratic Republic of Bakassi’ The decision was reportedly made at a meeting on the 2nd July 2006 and The Vanguard newspaper of Nigeria reported the decision to secede. The decision was reportedly made by groups of militants including Southern Cameroons under the aegis of Southern Cameroons Peoples Organization (SCAPO), Bakassi Movement for Self-Determination (BAMOSD), and the Movement for the Emancipating of the Niger Delta (MEND). The decision to secede was a very wrong one or choice of action. And this decision or action might have helped to worsen their plight, through the escalation of violence and harassment within the peninsula.  

Misconception of the Bakassi People: 

The true problem here, is that why did the Bakassi people choose to make themselves refugees in Nigeria and claiming to be Nigerians, instead of remaining steadfast legitimately in their indigenous homeland. They should have simply affirmed what they are, “Bakassi people – Bakassi Natives – Bakassi indigenes”. Or did the Nigerian ruling elites use coercion or certain inducements to make them comfortably proclaim that they are all Nigerians? Or might this misconception have arisen from the fact that a major faction of the tribe lives in Nigeria? Or were they overwhelmed by the military presence of the Nigerian army?  In fact, these questions and many more are baffling to any distant observer. In addition these humble people might have been exploited by these two nations (much stronger than they are), because of the apparent presences of various natural resources in their peninsula. There now should be reconsideration or a review of this case, by the ICJ, to seek a suitable way to lessen the suffering of the Bakassi people, who find themselves in-between two nations and very powerful Multi-National Corporations in petroleum business. The Bakassi people should have gladly accepted to become Cameroonians since their peninsula was legitimately transferred to its rightful owner - Cameroon.  Moreover this misconception has not truly helped their case. Their refugee status does not interest even Nigeria, the ICJ or the UN. They should now petition the ICJ for a review of this case as a group, so that the Cameroon government would accord them their legitimate right of nationality - citizenship and integrate them into the Cameroonian nation. They would be able to remain in Bakassi legitimately, without fear or favour from anybody whatsoever.  As Cameroonians their fishing business would still flourish, as they would now be capable to do business freely without any disturbance whatsoever with citizens of both countries. Due to their traditional affiliation is with the people of Nigeria, this particular sector of their activity would still be business as usual.  

Bakassi People should Appeal to the ICJ Independently:

Yes they should make a concrete appeal to the ICJ. Bakassi People should make a fresh appeal to the ICJ as a people, independent of Nigeria, for reasons of self-determination under UN International Covenants of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Their appeal as a people, independent of Nigeria would succeed and their general sufferings would in effect end. Bakassi people should not at this point bother about nationhood; truly nationhood is a farfetched dream. Actually, what matters at this point in time in the history of the human race as a people is economic prosperity for all and nothing else. One of the main reasons the ruling political elites of both Nigerian and Cameroon at the time of the ICJ’s judgment were not prepared to go to war on the issue of Bakassi, but had to negotiate among themselves for a handover, as per the court’s judgement. Do not be deceived; there could also have been a possible ‘under-the-counter’ dealing on this matter, regarding sharing of oil proceeds by the political elites of both countries. The individual self-interest of the ruling political elites must have been taken care of, for this matter to be resolved very quickly, without aggression. The Bakassi people’s interest and future was a minor ingredient in this dispute. The main ingredient for the ruling elites was undoubtedly financial benefits from the peninsula.  For the records Bakassi is currently being administered by the Cameroonian administration after the end of Nigerian occupation. Its been enjoying a significant degree of local autonomy under traditional rule. The current Monarch of Bakassi is Etinyin Etim Okon Edet an Efik man, the Efiks are predominantly settled in the territory of Nigeria; there should be no confusion here, whatsoever. The Bakassi Efiks are Efiks of Bakassi, very different from the Efiks already settled and living within Nigeria. In terms of territorial settlement, the Efiks of Bakassi could as well be compared to ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

False Claims:

The overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the swampy areas of the Bakassi peninsula, who live in scattered fishing communities, consider themselves to be Nigerians. This is absolutely wrong; it might have looked right from the beginning and implementation of the ICJ’s judgment by the political elites of both countries. But just within a short lapse of time is now proving that things were not properly done and it is also now very clear that although the ICJ’’s judgment may seem correct from general perspective, it is still rift with lots of errors. The best situation would have been (and still is) for the people of Bakassi to petition the Cameroonian government for citizenship. No one should be forced or coerced, or induced to live as a foreigner in his own native-homeland, no matter the situation. I am of the opinion that such a petition would receive a favourable outcome from the Cameroonian parliament, because these are reasonable men and women especially with the presence of reasonable and viable opposition parties. Africans should not cause material injury and injustice to its own people or one of its peoples, for no justifiable reason whatsoever. This level of injustice and whole-hearted wickedness or ignorance makes the African Union or the integration the African markets a truly silly project. Even if some corrupt ruling political elites are bent at perpetrating injustice, there should be people within Africa who should be able and capable to stand up for freedom, justice and fairness.

Political, Economic and Market Integration within Africa:

Political and economic integration in Africa has always seemed very remote in the present dispensation apparently because of situations similar to this one all over the continent. Truly, situation like the Bakassi crisis could permanently damage any possibility for a true African Union to exist. It could also make reasonable and concrete integration of African markets a farfetched dream. African must come back to their senses and start doing things rightly within the continent, as it was from the beginning of time. The Africa continent has always been a great land inhabited by great peoples. Fatal mistakes like the Bakassi affair, is truly painful and worrisome. This case should never have gone to the ICJ in the first place, it could have been resolved peacefully between the two nations, if people were determine to act reasonably, altruistically and brotherly, in the absence of greed, selfish geopolitical and individual interest. Moreover, the crux of the matter or the issue at stake now is not sovereignty but the survival and continuity, of the Bakassi people on their homeland. No group of people or individuals should be classed as foreigners in their own homeland – That is to say, in there own native-ancestral homeland. No matter what the political elites of both Cameroon and Nigeria feel, in their quest for power and oil wealth. The ICJ’s judgment without a clearly and futuristic defined nationality status of the Bakassi people and it acceptance without a proper and adequate review could be termed – a clear conspiracy against the Bakassi people by the political elites of both countries and even the ICJ. It could also be classified as a violation of their human rights, under various international human rights charter and covenants. Although the actions of certain individuals or group of individuals within the Bakassi community could have also or seemed to have contributed in positioning them in a situation that seem to be in violation their human rights, the AU, other integration organs, human rights group could have come to their aid in a proper fashion aiming at securing a just, reasonable, fair, futuristic and permanent solution to the plight of these people.  Even, if one cannot reject the fact that the Bakassi people themselves contributed in one way or the other in making their situation worse than it was supposed to be; by ignorantly as it now seems, in their claim of Nigerian nationality and leaving the territory to seek refuge in Nigeria.

Cameroonian Citizens through ICJ Judgment and Handover:

 I am of the opinion that the Bakassi natives by claiming to be Nigerians while the sovereignty of their homeland has been legally, officially and permanently transferred to Cameroon; made their situation worse than it was supposed to have been. They should have felt very comfortable to be Cameroonians or to be called as such; despite the fact their original ethnic ties and affiliation is within Nigeria. They could still change their minds thereby changing the entire situation and work hard to be integrated as part of the Cameroonian nation. They would not be the first to deal with this sort of arrangement; their exact situation is found all over the world. Many ethnic groups are divided between two nations, across international borders; one part sometimes is larger than the other divided between two separate countries. I feel personally that these people need an in-depth analysis, clarification and help on the true nature of their situation. They should reconsider the future consequences of their actions, for the sake of their children and children’s children. There is some degree of “mental slumber” here; and somebody needs to wake them up to present and even future realities.  Biblical accounts attest to what happened to the children of Israel, after a new Pharaoh was enthroned in Egypt. This shows what could happen to people in complicated quasi arrangements such as the Bakassi arrangements. Although the Israelites were sojourning in Egypt, they were treated very badly after a new Pharaoh took over partly because their condition of settlement was not well defined. The Bakassi situation is different and even worse because first and foremost they have been harassed, intimidated and even made refugees in their own homeland. No, no, no. These people are Cameroonian citizens by default. They should now be made or declared citizens of Cameroon. There should be legislation or even a decree from the Cameroonian government on their citizenship, it should be offered to them, not negotiated. There could be a provision for this in the Cameroonian constitution. Sovereignty has changed hands, so is citizenship too – the peninsula remains the same, in the same position, with the same people – all its peoples. What has actually and truly changed here is just sovereignty – sovereignty only - over the land and over its peoples.   Nevertheless, similar situations were very evident during the colonial era, when these nations were created on the dining tables of Western European ruling elites, without due consideration of ethnicity, regional and tribal affiliations, or even the demography or topography of the territories concern. But one defining factor was that when sovereignty changes hand among the European colonisers the people’s allegiance also changes immediately to the present master. It happened with the Cameroons after the World Wars when Southern Cameroons became a British protectorate while East Cameroons also became a French protectorate. There was never and issue of nationality (to whom the people belong to). Why can this same reasoning, ideology or philosophy apply to the people of Bakassi? The only difference is that Africans do most things sometime without reasons. For instance there are many children born to so many legal immigrants so many different African countries, yet these children are treated as foreigners in the nation of their birth simply because their parents are not nationals of the said nations. This is not done in developed and civilised countries. This is why many African countries would always comfortably fit as developing countries long after passing this very stage. Human rights and simple logic keep them very far behind from Western civilization and development, which is the benchmark of the modern world.

Historic Factors on the Interpretation of Nationhood and Citizenship:

The Nigeria's defence minister at the time told the BBC that the Bakassi problem was connected to problems connected with mapping out the border overseas.  However, as mentioned earlier during the colonial era, when any territory changed hands; that is from one colonial master to another, the people (inhabitants) also changed their allegiance. The nation of Cameroon itself was a clear example of these changes, so its government and peoples, would attest to these simple facts. This why the resolution of the Bakassi crisis should have been as simple as the very first three English alphabets: A B C. In those days, the Cameroons thought they were British but they finally realized they were a German colony, in agony. After 1916, their situation was further complicated through the League of Nations’ partition (June 28, 1919). One part of the country was given to the British and the other, was given to the French. Southern Cameroons was then ruled from Calabar, now it is being ruled from Yaoundé.  Finally this pertinent question comes to mind. How could someone be called an indigene (a native) in a land (a country) and at the same time be classified as a foreigner, in that same country? These people should go back to their native homeland; Nigeria cannot provide a better alternative for them. According to a Nigerian news station, fishermen displaced from Bakassi had been settled in a landlocked area, now called New Bakassi, which they claim is already inhabited and not suitable for fishermen like themselves but only for farmers. 

Conclusion:

With the ongoing globalization of the world economy, the people of Bakassi truly do not need to be bothered about who is sovereign over their peninsula. They should instead be bothered mainly about the economic welfare of their people and the peninsula. They should be truly happy to be Cameroonians in all respect, instead of living in complete confusion. The fate of many people such as the people of Bakassi could be made better through the AU project. If properly directed and well managed, the AU represents a bright hope for many people. Generally, most people of central European origin see themselves first and foremost as Europeans; but in Africa the notion of belonging to a tribal grouping still takes precedence over the pride of belonging to a nation or even the continent. In this regard, regional integration of a supra-national nature, such as the European Union (EU) is still very much farfetched in Africa, partly due to the proliferation of ‘shadowy’ nations within many African countries^. If the AU project becomes effective, as it should, it could help in the resolution of identity crisis among Africans and reduce the apparent misconception of African citizenship. By so doing, it could engineer some meaningful progress in the development of the continent, through a single market project. This could in fact help bring an end to the shameless incessant harassment, gross injustice and wicked inhuman treatment of many Africans within the African continent.