Case Report: Biafra v. Nigeria [3]
by
Judgment of 15 March, 2002
In this judgment delivered in the case of Biafra v. Nigeria the Court found unanimously, that it had jurisdiction to entertain the Application and hear the case, on the basis of Article 36 paragraph 2 and 5.
The complete text of the operative clause of the judgment is as follows:
‘THE COURT,
‘[1] Unanimously,
Finds that it has jurisdiction under Article 34 to entertain the Application brought by the Biafran Republic and that the Application is admissible.
The Court was composed as follows: President Van Duzer; Vice President Eli; Judges Claver, Ibraheem, DeSantos, Ettinger, Yokosama, and Peteshi.
Since the Declaration was unanimous the judges explained their position as follows:
1. That the principle of uti possidetis appears to conflict with the rights of people to self determination, free choice of status and consequences as enunciated by the UN, without which there would not have been East Timor. The question that needs to be answered is when is a State a State? What instruments are needed for a State to be regarded as a State?
2. The role of equity and lack of a Declaration: The Court maintains that it is impossible to invoke equity, as it has to consider it infra legem which is a method that constitutes an interpretation of the law in force. The Court treats international law mainly on the basis of issues, and it would be tantamount to injustice for the Court to buy the argument of Nigeria and pretend that there is no issue at stake. The Parties are referred to ICJ Reports 1964, pp 62-63, "International law being primarily based upon the general principles of law and justice, is unfettered by technicalities and formalistic consideration……It is reality which counts more than appearance." The Court therefore would not have expected Biafra to meet some international obligation when it was faced with a war for survival.
3. The Court has accepted the right of the Niger Delta States to intervene, with the agreement of both parties. Under Article 81, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court which shall be set out as stated under Article 62 of the Statute This should hereinafter not be quoted as a precedent.
4. Furthermore, the Statute and the Rules of Court of the International Court of Justice provide for the recourse to witnesses only on the initiative of the parties or the Court. The Court hereby acknowledges the wishes of both parties to call a witness each. In doing this the Court acknowledges the fact that this dispute has been going on for a long time, therefore, both parties might be wrong and do not seem to understand each other. Since, the Court believes that, the only language applicable or universal to both parties is the language of mathematics, the Court with the acquiescence of both parties agree for two witnesses who understand the language of mathematics to appear before the Court. Each witness to be called by either party. These witnesses should both be mathematicians. The Nigerian side has indicated Professor Ike Eze, a Nigerian Eboe while the Biafran side would call Alhaji Ahmadu Tikko, a Nigerian Fulani. These names have been duly presented and accepted by the Court.
5. The Court also notes that the parties, already are bound by Article 94, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations, expressly declared in Article IV, paragraph 1, of the Special Agreement that they ‘accept the judgment of the Court’
Case was adjourned to March 21, 2003.
Orok Edem
Case Report 1: Biafra v. Nigeria
Case Report 2: Biafra v. Nigeria
This is a fallacious and fictional representation. If you want to read the oral arguments and behind the scene preparation of both parties, buy the forthcoming pamphlet ‘Biafra v. Nigeria’.
The writer is a New York based cabbie