October 9, 2012 by John Ameh, Olushola Fabiyi, Oluwole Josiah and Ihuoma Chiedozie
The
Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed
Adoke, has said Nigeria will not apply for the review of the judgment of
the International Court of Justice, ceding the Bakassi Peninsula to
Cameroon.
Adoke, in a statement on Monday,
explained that the argument canvassed by the proponents of the review
“is virtually bound to fail” as “a failed application will be
diplomatically damaging to Nigeria”.
The window to ask for a review of the
judgment delivered on October 10, 2012 ends today. By the court’s
statute, a party can call for a review of its verdict within 10 years
if there are fresh facts.
The government decison is certain to disappoint a section of Nigerians who had campaigned for a review of the ICJ judgment.
It was learnt that the Bakassi issue
would be addressed by President Goodluck Jonathan during a nationwide
broadcast at 7am today.
Feelers late last night indicated that
the President would use the broadcast to assuage the feelings of
Nigerians on the Bakassi issue.
The AGF said the committee, set up by
President Goodluck Jonathan had weighed the implications of a failed
review, having noted the stringent condition attached to such review,
and had advised Nigeria against appealing the judgment.
He said, “The committee proceeded to
examine the case for revision against the requirements of Article 61 of
the ICJ Statute and was constrained to observe from the oral
presentations made to it by the proponents of the revision that the
strict requirements of Article 61 could not be satisfied.
“This is because their presentation was
unable to show that Nigeria had discovered a decisive fact that was
unknown to her before the ICJ judgment, which is capable of swaying the
Court to decide in its favour. This is more so as most of the issues
canvassed in support of the case for a revision of the ICJ judgment had
been canvassed and pronounced upon by the ICJ in its 2002 judgment.
“The Federal Government also retained a
firm of international legal practitioners to advise on the merits and
demerits of the case for revision. The firm, after considering all the
materials that were placed at its disposal against the requirements of
Article 61 of the ICJ Statute came to the reasoned conclusion that ‘an
application for a review is virtually bound to fail’ and that ‘a failed
application will be diplomatically damaging to Nigeria’.
“In view of the foregoing, the Federal
Government has therefore decided that it will not be in the national
interest to apply for revision of the 2002 ICJ Judgment in respect of
the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria.”
Adoke however expressed the concern of
the FG on “the plight of Nigerians living in the Bakassi Peninsula and
the allegations of human rights abuses being perpetrated against
Nigerians in the Peninsula”.
He said, “The FG is determined to engage
Cameroon within the framework of the existing implementation mechanisms
agreed to by Nigeria and Cameroon in order to protect the rights and
livelihoods of Nigerians living in the Peninsula.”
So it seems, going by indication that
the Federal Government had yet to call for a review of the International
Court of Justice judgment ceding the peninsula to neighbouring
Cameroon.
Meanwhile, an Abuja Federal High Court
will today deliver ruling in a suit in which Bakassi indigenes are
seeking an order compelling Jonathan and the Federal Government to void
the Green Tree Agreement signed with Cameroon in 2006.
In a motion ex-parte moved by their
counsel, Mr. Festus A. Ogwuche, before Justice Gabriel Kolawole, the
Bakassi indigenes asked for an order of mandamus that would compel the
President to, “by any means available to it, repossess, occupy and take
full legal and administrative control of the Bakassi Peninsula.”
The motion was filed pursuant to section
1 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Enforcement and
Ratification Act Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, as
well as Order 34 Rules 1(a), 3(1) and (2) of the Federal High Court
Civil Procedure Rules, 2007.
The Federal Government, Jonathan and the AGF were joined as the respondents in the suit.
The Bakassi indigenes sought leave for
an order of mandamus, compelling the respondents to “unilaterally resile
from, withdraw, rescind, repudiate and/or revoke Nigeria’s obligations
under the Green Tree Agreement” entered into between Nigeria and
Cameroon in Green Tree, New York, USA on June 12, 2006, for being
invalid and in breach of Articles 1, 2, 20, 21, 22 and 24 of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, Article 1 of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 1 (2) of the
UN Charter, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of indigenous peoples,
and also being inconsistent with sections 1-3, 2(1) and (6), 13, 14(1)
and (2)(b), 17(1), (2)(b), (c) and (d), sections 19(a) and 9d0, 21(a) of
the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
They maintained that the ICJ gave its
judgment based “on archaic and anachronistic colonial declarations, and
communications between colonial officers.”
After listening to the submissions of
the counsel for the Bakassi indigenes when the ex parte motion was heard
on Friday, Kolawole adjourned the ruling till today, saying he needed
time to carefully study the court processes “in view of weighty national
issues raised therein.”
SOURCE: The Punch - Nigeria's Most Widely Read Newspaper 9 October 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment