Nigeria cannot afford to lose more of its territories to Cameroun
Senate Leader, Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba (SAN), recently raised an alarm that if the federal government failed to take urgent actions, Nigeria could lose about eight of the 18 local government areas in Cross River State to Cameroun. Ndoma-Egba sounded the warning against the backdrop of an ongoing boundary adjustment between Nigeria and Cameroun by the United Nations following the 2002 judgment of the International Court of Justice that ceded the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroun. Unfortunately, it does not appear as if the relevant authorities are paying the necessary attention.
Said Ndoma-Egba: “There are some boundary delineation exercise going on as a result of the Green Tree Agreement, which was the consequence of the judgment of the International Court of Justice on what we call Bakassi. The Green Tree Agreement necessitated some boundary adjustments and that exercise started somewhere from Lake Chad and it is supposed to go right down to the Atlantic Ocean in the South; so the exercise is going on but in a place called Danari, in Boki Local Government in my constituency.”
“The Anglo/German boundary of 1913,” added the Senator, “has been there and a particular beacon stone, beacon 113, we heard cannot be found; the rest has been found and that is the one they are trying to locate. The United Nations team is insisting on taking a straight line, now the communities believe that the beacon is somewhere further in the Camerouns. If they do a straight line as they want to do, then we will be losing some communities to the Camerouns including the famous Agbokim Water Falls, where Hon. John Enoh comes from.”
This is a serious issue that should command the nation’s attention. We recall that at the meeting of the Cameroun-Nigeria mixed Commission and follow-up committee on the Green Tree Agreement, United Nation’s Secretary General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon congratulated Cameroun and Nigeria on the progress in implementing the International Court of Justice ruling on the disputed Bakassi Peninsula. He said the commitment of both countries to peacefully resolve the border dispute “should be a source of inspiration for countries around the world that face similar challenges.”
It would, however, appear that the compliments came rather too early. In fact, squabbles over the treaty have poisoned relations not only between Nigeria and Cameroun but also between some states in our country. To now hear that UN officials may be taking positions that favour Cameroun against our country is most unfortunate.
Over the last couple of years, Nigerians in Bakassi have accused Camerounian authorities of violating the terms of the agreement by forcibly giving their communities Camerounian names, denying them economic rights, and imposing discriminatory taxes. However, that is because Nigeria has not been performing its obligations under the treaty since the agreement provides that our country must ensure that inhabitants of the Peninsula who opt to settle in Nigeria are “provided the necessary means and measures to do so.”
All that the people of Bakassi are demanding is some care from their country, which for now is not forthcoming. Instructively, Ban Ki-moon had from the outset underlined some pitfalls that should not be overlooked: “As we look ahead, one main challenge will be to protect the livelihood and human rights of the affected populations, whether they are Camerounians or Nigerians”.
Given that the least the Nigerian government can do is to show solidarity with the Bakassi people, we appeal to the federal government to take seriously the concerns expressed by Ndoma-Egba as it would be a shame if we allow the UN to cede to Cameroun what clearly are Nigerian territories after all that we have already lost.
