Equatorial Guinea and the Bakassi Dispute
By
Until the re-definition of Cameroons memorial at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Bakassi Peninsula remained an object of dispute between two main parties: Cameroon, as the plaintiff, and Nigeria, as the respondent. But following the ICJ's hearing of the preliminary objections. especially that the ICJ has competence to hear and adjudicate the case, two new parties are increasingly showing interest in how the dispute will be resolved and how it must not be resolved to their detriment.
First, some Anglophone Cameroonians living in Nigeria have decided to take Nigeria to the ICJ in order to indirectly make a case for their autonomy within the
framework of the ICJ resolution of the Bakassi dispute, by accusing Nigeria of neglecting their interests in the 1960s. By urging Nigeria to advance their cause
implies that, if the case is made and Anglophone Cameroon is given satisfaction by the court, the issue of the Bakassi may then be between the newly autonomous
Anglophone Cameroon and Nigeria.
Secondly, Governor Jolly T. Nyame. of Taraba State, has complained bitterly about the Cameroonian invasion of Lipyam and Baissa local government. In his words,
'Taraba State has the longest borer with Cameroon than any state in the federation. The problem we have right now is that of Lipyam. The Cameroonians have
encroached into our land and had gone ahead to construct a market or so. Our security personnel have alerted us and we have gotten in touch with the Nigerian
High Commissioner (sic) in Cameroon... I personally believe that the government of Cameroon is taking advantage of our inability to provide social services to
people along the border". More important, he complained that Taraba and Adamawa states, which share borders with Cameroon, were deprived from going to The Hague
over the Bakassi dispute. True, only the Federal Government is recognised by international law to represent the country at the ICJ and in international
relations. However, this simply means that the Bakassi dispute is no longer limited to the peninsula and governments but is also widening in all ramifications.
Thirdly, Equatorial Guinea has vested interests in the Bakassi dispute and said she wanted to be involved in the case for a limited purpose" being a
'non-party", especially in the area of maritime delimitation. According to Mr. Ricardo Obama N'Fube, Equatorial Guinea's agent and Minister of State for Labour
and Social Security last March 18, the maritime claims of Cameroon have 'adverse effect on Equatorial Guinea," especially in the sense that the claims
deliberately deny any maritime border with Equatorial Guinea. Consequently. the Cameroonian claims are threatening", and very injurious to the economic
interests of the country in the maritime area. Equatorial Guinea is therefore asking the ICJ to protect her own interests while adjudicating the border dispute
between Nigeria and Cameroon.
What is noteworthy here is that Cameroon, according to Equatorial Guinea, is denying having any maritime border with her. Whereas Equatorial Guinea said she
had always had a maritime boundary line in the southern waters with Cameroon since 1984 and had made a lot of investments in oil and gas and Cameroon 'had never
contested" this fact. Thus, Cameroon's new border line is unilaterally drawn without any consultation with Equatorial Guinea.
More significantly, Equatorial Guinea contended that, she, along with Nigeria and Cameroon, had agreed to and shared the maritime tri-point where the maritime
jurisdictions of the three countries met or intercepted, and where they had also been involved in various oil practices until the new Cameroon line emerged".
Even though the three countries agreed that the tri-point be negotiated unilaterally, the truth now is that 'Cameroon is asking the court to deny this
relationship and determine its boundary with Nigeria. This is prejudicial to the Equatorial Guinea's maritime interest, historical and geographical facts."
From the foregoing, two important implications are evident. First Cameroon apparently has enemies within and without, essentially because of its own policies.
At the domestic level, there is the problem of Anglophone Cameroonians, who want to drag Nigeria to the ICJ because of what they perceive as wrongful neglect by
Nigerian authorities and hence, the unwanted opportunity given to the Camerounian authorities to undermine Anglophones' interests. The extent to which the
Anglophone Camerounians are able to push their case for autonomy may also go a long way in determining the status of the Bakassi, not necessarily in terms of
who has sovereignty but essentially in terms of who Nigeria's immediate neigbour will be. At the external level is the factor of Equatorial Guinea. The problem
is that Cameroon is openly reneging on a trilaterally agreed principle of a tri-point. This attitude of Cameroon has not helped Yaounde-Abuja relations in
recent times. Cameroon sought ICJ adjudication of the dispute but at the same time continues to engage in military incursions into Nigeria. In the same vein,
Cameroon is trying to give the impression at the ICJ that she does not have any maritime border with Equatorial Guinea.
This situation is not at all different at the level of the dispute over Lake Chad. The memorial of Cameroun deliberately ignores the multilateral framework
under which sovereignty over the lake has been defined. The non-deniable truth is that it is the Lake Chad Basin Commission (LCBC) that has the competence for
border demarcation as collectively agreed to but Cameroun, again, is unilaterally making a nonsense out of the LCBC framework. By asking the ICJ to determine in
Cameroun's favour the territorial limits in the lake is, at best, unilateral, because the interests of Chad and Niger are also at stake. What is very clear
about the attitude of Cameroun to the issue of the various disputes she has taken to the ICJ is the 'do- or-die' approach. Cameroun wants the Bakassi by all
means.
In 1996, Prof. Christian Tomuschat counsel to Cameroun, told the ICJ that Nigeria had violated the court order by creating the Bakassi local government and that
Cameroun was not consulted by Nigeria before doing so. According to the counsel, Bakassi fell under the control of Nigeria only after its invasion and by this
de facto power, Nigeria granted the Bakassi people "a fictitious municipality status." This allegation deliberately ignored the truth: there were complaints by
the Bakassi people against the Nigerian government for not caring well for them before 1994. The quarrels between some states in Nigeria over the Bakassi, also
abound long before the alleged invasion
.
Another truth that has also emerged from the various submissions at the ICJ is that Cameroun has not been able to justify her historical claims to the Bakassi
Peninsula. Thus, it may not be sufficient to be making spurious claims that have the potential of further deepening the misunderstanding, while at the same time
efforts are being made to settle the dispute.
Initially, on 29 March, 1994, when Cameroun instituted proceedings against Nigeria, Cameroun simply asked the ICJ to "determine the course of the maritime
boundaries between the two states beyond the line fixed in 1975". However, on June 6 1994, Cameroun filed an additional application extending the "question of
sovereignty over a part of the territory of Cameroun in the area of Lake Chad. Thus, in the two applications, Cameroun did not raise the maritime border with
Equatorial Guinea but simply asked the ICJ of adjudge that Cameroun has sovereignty over the Bakassi, that Nigeria has violated the principle of sanctity of
colonial frontiers, as well as her obligations under treaty law and customary law be occupying parcels of Camerounian territory, that Nigeria should withdraw
from Camerounian territory, that Nigeria should pay reparation, the sum of which is to be determined by the ICJ, and more importantly, that the ICJ should
specify definitively the frontier between the two countries from Lake Chad to the sea.
On September 16, 1996 a United Nations goodwill mission also visited both countries for the purposes of an on-the-spot assessment of the dispute in order to
help resolve the problem but the problem is very far from being resolved legally and politically. The position of some Anglophone Camerounians seeking to take
Nigeria to the ICJ does not, in any serious manner affect Nigeria's memorial at the ICJ. On the contrary, it only further lends direct support to it. Again. the
intervention of Equatorial Guinea in the matter does not affect Nigeria's claims at the ICJ. Both cases only lend credence to our belief that the only way of
permanently resolving the problem is political. No amount of Camerounian unilateralism can solve the problem or intimidate either Equatorial Guinea or Nigeria.
In fact, the era of League of Nations Mandate or UN Trusteeship in Africa now belongs to the dustbin of history. The future of a community can no longer be
determined in any law court without due reference to the people directly affected. Besides, the root cause of the Bakassi dispute is not a priori the
non delimitation of the maritime borders per se but because the British colonialists transferred sovereignty over land and people illegally without consulting
with the people. The ICJ must not do the same without due regard to the interests of the people at stake.
April 2002