|
Case Report: Biafra v. Nigeria [11]
Preliminary Objections of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the CASE brought against her by Agents of the Biafran Republic on 29 August, 2000.
March 25, 2001
Contents Chapter 1. Introduction- Basis of Nigeria’s case Chapter 2. The agents of the purported ‘Biafran’ Republic have no locus standi. Chapter 3. The exclusive competence of the Nigerian judicial system. Chapter 4. The application is faulty and inadmissible. Chapter 5. Historical and political context. 1.Introduction [a] On 29 August, 2000, agents of a purported ‘Biafran Republic’ lodged an Application with the Court instituting proceedings against the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Application questioned the ‘sovereignty’ of the Federal Republic of Nigeria over the Eastern part of Nigeria. [b] The Nigerian government bases her objections to ‘Biafra’s assertions’ on the principle of intangibility of frontiers inherited from colonization-uti possidetis juris which accords pre-eminence to legal title over effective possession as a basis of sovereignty. Based in particular on respect for the resolution AGH/Res.16[1] adopted in Cairo in July 1964 at the first summit conference following the creation of the Organization of African Unity, whereby member States ‘solemnly …..pledge themselves to respect the frontiers existing on their achievement of national independence’. [c] This is seen as the wisest course in Africa, because it provides the essential ingredient for survival, development and consolidation of independence 2. The parties to the dispute: Agents of ‘Biafra’ have no locus standi. [a] Nigeria is a Federation with unitary underpinning, while Biafra is a non existent rebel entity. A majority of the population of the so called ‘Biafra’ do not want to live in ‘Biafra’ and are happy as Nigerians. [b] By virtue of Article 34 of the Statue of the International Court of Justice, "only States may be parties in cases before the Court". Moreover , Articles 62 and 63 of the Statute of the Court provide only two forms of intervention, both of which are exclusively open to States. Therefore, the agents of ‘Biafra’ cannot satisfy the requirement of reciprocity., as the form of intervention being sought from the court is only open to States. [c] ‘Biafra’s’ assertion, Chapter 111[15] of compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in Conformity with Article 36 of its Statute is ultra vires. Article 36.2 of the Statute establishes jurisdiction of the Court ‘in relation to another State accepting the same obligation’. And, Article 36.3 permits Declaration to be made on jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory: on the basis of reciprocity., as it hinges on good faith behavior of States which Biafra is not, and is not likely to be. [d] Since Nigeria’s Declaration was dated 14 August 1965, and had been in custody of the Secretary General of the United Nations on September 3, 1965: its text is at NPO 5. Therefore, whereas Nigeria’s Declaration has been a matter of public record for 30 years ‘Biafra’ has no such document on file. ‘Biafra’ failed to ‘specify’ the legal grounds for which her case is based ‘as far as possible’ and this does not satisfy compliance to Article 38.2 of the Rules of Court as ‘Biafra’ did not mention the date which she filed her Declaration, as Nigeria has done. 3. Exclusive competence of Nigerian Courts. [a] ‘Biafra’ does not exist but is a constituent part of Nigeria., and, since Nigeria possesses a functioning legal system, and is a signatory to the Human Rights Charter of the Organization of African Unity and the United Nations., we hold that this Court is without jurisdiction over the matter raised in the Application. Therefore, there is no basis for a judicial determination of responsibility of genocide by the Nigerian State since the ‘Biafran’ Republic does not exist. [b] Without prejudice to the foregoing, Nigeria seeks the determination of the jurisdiction of the Court in the matter above and the discountenance of the Application by ‘Biafra’ before any visit, if any, is made to the legal grounds upon which the ‘Biafran Republic’ bases its case. 4. The Application is faulty and inadmissible [a] The application is the handiwork of only 10,000 Eboes who shall be, hereinafter, referred to as Reboes. The remaining ninety nine percent of the Eboes, hereinafter, referred as the Neboes are happy to remain Nigerians. [b] The submitted map of ‘Biafra’ is non existent as the inhabitants of the Niger Delta region of the map are Nigerians, and do not want to change their nationality. Though, Nigeria has not recognized the right of ‘Biafra’ to invoke the Declaration under Article 36.2 of the Statute, equity and good faith demands that the right be not exercised without other affected Nationalities [Niger Delta States] within Nigeria, and the territory in dispute being given an opportunity to state their wants, in view of the actions of the Reboes. [c] This Court is thus obliged to hold agents of ‘Biafra’ to act in accordance with good faith, as it is a general principle of law and is also part of International law. And thus, there is no reciprocity in fact as Biafra is a non existent State, that does not have, and has no way of having a Declaration under Article 36.2 made, now and in the future. 5. Historical and political context [a] This case has been brought by Reboes who are a subgroup of the Eboes. The Eboes are divided into two group the Neboes, who are Nigerians or neutral Eboes and the Reboes who pretend to live in ‘Biafra’. [b] It was the Eboes who were in the vanguard for the Independence of Nigeria in 1960., through the actions and inactions of Zik, a Neboe, and the West African Pilot, a national newspaper. [c] An Eboe man was the first Governor General of Nigeria at Independence in 1960. [d] An Eboe man planned and carried out the first military coup de etat in Nigeria. It was Eboe officers in the army that initiated the killings of officers of northern origin in 1966. An Eboe man was the Senate President that handed over power to an Eboe Army General, who then introduced the unitary system of government into the Nigerian political lexicon. [e] This General later lost his life in regrettable circumstances. There is no friction between the Eboes and the Yorubas [OPC} whatsoever, as the Eboe General and a Yoruba military governor were killed together, because the Yoruba governor opted to die with the Eboe General, instead of letting him be killed alone. Therefore, the killing of Eboes by the OPC should be discounted. [f] It was an Eboe Colonel, the military governor of Eastern Nigeria, who took advantage of the new Nigerian military Head of State naivety at the Aburi peace meeting. [g] It was an Eboe military governor who released the political prisoner Awo, sent him home with his driver and escort, and established telephone links to him. This Awo, masterminded the war effort from the Federal side. He put in place the economic blockade and the change of currency for the Nigerian side. It was this same man that paid all Easterners twenty pounds after the war. It was this Awo, that uttered the statement that, the Eboes do not need stockfish and second hand clothing to survive. Therefore, the Eboes are to blame for their General releasing this man. [see Document 4 enclosed] [h] The Nigerian Government could not have launched a massive air, sea and land attack on Biafra, because the Nigerian side did not possess the means to do so. It was Awo mentioned earlier,[g] who went and begged the Russians for supplies and got the naval ship NNS Ekpen, Egyptian pilots and other accoutrements to prosecute the war. [i] It was the Eboes that first introduced an aerial dimension into the conflict by means of their B26 fighter bomber and helicopter gun ships, that were used in attacking the Nigerian State. [j] The only ship owned by the Nigerian side was hijacked by an Eboe officer to Biafra and was later used against Nigeria. Note that, this naval officer was later made the number two man in the military government of Nigeria. [k] The Nigerian government only ordered a 48 hour police action against the Eboes. [m] The Eboes refused to back down after the 48 hours and left Nigeria with no choice than to exert the will of the State over her territories. The Eboes then advanced towards Lagos to link with the [proverbial] Third Force. [l] The war was meant to rescue the Eboes and not to conquer them. A fact which has been well noted by the Eboe commander himself, where he claims the Eboes won the war. In order words, it was the Nigerian government that had his objective defeated.[Document 3] [m] All attempts at reconstruction failed in the Eboe area because of massive land slides, afforestation and erosion. [n] Eboes are the most well fed and best dressed Nigerians and do not need stockfish or second hand clothing to survive. In the 2000 Olympiad held in Australia, the Nigerian contingent were dressed in Eboe traditional attire. [o] The attack on Odi mentioned in the ‘Biafrans’ Application [14h] was an act of self defense by the Nigerian forces against the ‘oily headed’ Izons, who dared to kill Nigerian policemen, an act which only the OPC is entitled. They have since seen the errors of their ways and are now busy fighting over their 13% allocation from the Nigerian State. Anyway, Odi is not in Eboe land. [p] The killing of Gideon Akaluka [14i] was due to an internal breakdown in communication within the law organs of Nigeria. There was no official permission to display his head, which has since been rescued and returned to his people. [q] Mr. Saro Wiwa’s death [14j] was an aberration and not the norm, and to prove that, the Nigerian government has offered his kin, Mr. Wiwa’s body for post mortem if he could be identified. This case is presently before a New York Court, and the Nigerian government has to show restraint in commenting about the case since it is Shell Petroleum that is being sued. The late gentleman was not an Eboe man. [r] Eboes do not need to lift crude oil, as the Nigerian State has allowed them monopoly of the spare part market in our economy. [s] There are no abandoned properties in Nigeria, because the former ‘Biafran’ Head of State had his father’s returned to him in Lagos. The military governor of River State at that time had complained of loss of documents pertaining to ownership but the Nigerian government is still looking into it. Most importantly, the Eboes claim that they owned Port Harcourt so we do not see how their properties could be abandoned on their land. [t] The American government’s refusal of the Igwe of Nnewi a travel visa has nothing to do with Nigeria, but the fact that the Eboes have filled their immigration quota in the US. [u] The Federal Republic of Nigeria has not adopted Shari’ah as a legal tool. It has only been accepted because it is the will of the people and Nigeria is a democracy. Documents attached
Based on the foregoing, we duly ask the Court on behalf of the Federal Government of Nigeria to dismiss the case as it lacks merit, is unenforceable and Nigeria has no case to answer and would ‘in fact’ be prejudiced if the case is allowed to continue.
Not Signed Chief L. Kola Akerekoro SAN Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Agent of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Professor Ibrahim Dan Iska SAN Prof. Edo Jimbo SAN
Both Parties agreed to request the Court to determine separately the question of jurisdiction, reciprocity, admissibility, the right to intervention by other parties and the right to call witnesses by either party or the Court.
The writer is a New York cabbie
|