Call Me
Bakassi: A call for deep rumination
Thirteen years ago Nigeria had an election towards the end of IBB's eight years in power as a military Head of State. The pool of presidential aspirants was weaned down until finally, Nigerians were left with just Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola of the SDP and Alhaji Othman Bashir Tofa of the NRC. After a fiercely contested election, which by international and foreign media supervision, was tagged the freest and fairest election in Nigerian History, Chief MKO Abiola won the election. The events that transpired however, after IBB realized that he was going to hand over power to a Southerner remain one of the darkest in the history of Nigeria as a nation. After careful deliberation with characters in his inner circle, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida annulled the election on June 12, 1993. He teleguided the installment of Mr Ernest Shonekan as head of an interim government thus setting up the stage for Abacha to seize power in a bloodless coup. The rest is as they say history.
June 12, like the Ides of March, however is a date that may continue to live in infamy for many Nigerians because it was a day when their collective voices were dashed to pieces on the altar of partisan politics. It is not surprising therefore that many Nigerians treat that date with the commensurate sense of apprehension, sympathy, forlornliness or perhaps stifled rage. If June 12 of the past three or four years went without incident, this year's June 12 certainly has dealt new frustration, bitterness and desperation for some Nigerians because it was on this day that President Obasanjo and his Camerounian counterpart signed an agreement in New York in which Obasanjo would cede the contentious, violence-ridden Bakassi Peninsula to the Camerounians. The issue of the rightful ownership of the Bakassi Peninsula had been a source of fiery debates and deep acrimony between Nigeria and her immediate east-bound neighbor Cameroun and rightly so. It is strategically located, and besides it sits on a rich reserve of crude oil and natural gas.
For the avoidance of all doubt, Bakassi Peninsula belongs to Nigeria. The indigenes of this area are Nigerians in every sense of the word, and their cousins and relatives can be found in Cross River and Akwa Ibom states--the closest Nigerian states to the Peninsula. Bakassi has a local government council and has representatives in the Nigerian National Assembly, and therefore, there is simply no doubt about the fact that this part of the world has historically belonged to the Nigerian State. What therefore is the source of the friction?
During the Nigerian Civil war that raged between 1967-1970, the supreme commander of the Nigerian forces in the person of Yakubu Gowon went to talk with Ahmadu Ahidjo his erstwhile counterpart in Cameroun. It was true that before this time, there had been disagreements over who owned the swampy strip of land called the Bakassi Peninsula, but it is now widely believed that Gowon promised to give over that tiny piece of land to the Camerouns if they would shut their border and restrict the free flow of relief aid to the Biafran side of the conflict. Without calling back to memory the bitterness of the Nigeria-Biafra war, Cameroun fulfilled her own end of the bargain often sending gendarmes into this disputed area to terrorise, loot and kill the people of the Bakassi peninsula. The calculations were militarily strategic viz: cut off the Biafrans from all corners, paralyze the flow of relief aid, humanitarian agencies or ammunition, and then follow up with military shelling from all corners. The calculations that spawned this agreement with Cameroun worked, but whereas it had military efficiency it was not imbued with good judgment neither was it the product of careful consideration for possible boundary disputes.
The war ended in 1970 and Nigeria recorded a victory. For a time this agreement was hidden away till it became popular knowledge that Bakassi (which in itself is of little value) is situated close to territorial waters that are rich in hydrocarbons and fishery resources. Over the years, verbal and military salvos between Nigeria and Cameroun have deteriorated to the point that Nigeria was then found in the position of sending troops to this region to defend her territory and territorial waters. It seemed that a bloody battle was imminent between the two nations. This situation was so dire that both parties moved the case out to the International Court of Justice promising to abide by the decision reached by this world governing body. It is instructive however to note that Cameroun did not anchor her claims to Bakassi on the controversial agreement reached between Gowon and Ahidjo--an agreement which Nigerians now angrily dismiss. That nothwithstanding, the disagreement should be properly anchored historically, on a 1917 document between the colonial powers Germany and Britain, and their failure to properly delineate the status of this Peninsula. They agreed on the rest of the border between their colonies, and failed, intentionally or otherwise, to properly assign a status to Bakassi.
The World Court however, after months of serious deliberations ruled in favor of Cameroun. Cameroun has a population slightly above 16 million, so it was ostensibly a day of national rejoicing when in 2002, they defeated their numerically superior neighbors. The acid test of Nigeria's nascent democracy therefore became one of whether the president of the country would submit himself to dictates of international law. A few days ago, in the presence of Kofi Annan, the secretary-general of the United Nations, it appears that Obasanjo has decided to fulfill his international obligations. The aftermath of such his decision to append his signature of that treaty is that in a short time, Nigeria will have to pull her troops away from Bakassi and forfeit the administration of this area to the Camerounians. It also means that Bakassi indigenes would need to relocate further inland or endure their new reclassification as Camerounians. Western nations have heaped profuse praise on Obasanjo for sparing the world another senseless round of violence in war-torn Africa. As a matter of fact, Obasanjo's action has perhaps unwittingly spared the UN a possible conscience-pricking, principle-rattling measure of imposing sanctions on a transparently poor African country when such actions would, rather than punish the intransigence of Nigeria's current government, evidently inflict more pain and suffering to the country's suffering majority who live below the poverty line. A war to liberate Iraq has not blown over well, so it is questionable whether the UN security council would have been united on any call for military action.
The center stage of rancorous exchanges have now been moved to the Nigerian political landscape.
Nigerians have lacerated this government for its shoddy defense at the ICJ in the Hague. In the words of Gani Fawehinmi, a human rights activist and a dogged fighter for social justice, "[The president's] arrogance and undue obstinacy have again caused the nation such a vast land in a rather lackadaisical manner. He has never been in the habit of consulting with the people. He does not believe in the people. It is a very fundamental decision, which should have been subjected to referendum since you cannot separate the people from their land. The judgment of the International Court of Justice is a mere opinion of the court to the UN Security Council. And Nigeria should have fought the battle at the Security Council. In the whole scenario, Obasanjo has not acted as a truly nationalistic leader. He has no patriotic vision and zeal and people do not count in his estimation. Otherwise he would not have taken such a decision which ultimately will result in colossal economic and financial loss to the nation in a rather careless manner.”
More condemnations have come in the form of enquiries regarding the calibre of lawyers, and the amount of money the government spent in pursuing this case. Some have wondered whether lawyers versed in International law were used, and what sort of evidence was tendered to warrant a ruling against Nigeria. The most emotional criticisms however seem to be the passionate plea by the leaders of the affected region for Nigerians not to sit by quietly as they were being parcelled off wholesale to a country to which they were not eager to join. These leaders would prefer a plebiscite or a referendum to determine which country they would like to belong to, and barring such, they have enunciated their desire for self-rule or to be ruled as a UN trusty protectorate. These appeals however seem futile because the ICJ's decision to award the land to Cameroun come with a prior understanding that her decision is not amenable to discussion or revision.
There are many thing to draw from these series of events. Indeed there are many lessons here for today's growing generation.
1) Nigeria is patently not a nation in the real sense of the word. It is rather a cruel contraption fashioned at the Berlin Conference of 1884, where European robber statesmen, in an effort to prevent clashes as they explored the continent, arbitrarily divvied up the continent. In the process, their colonial boundaries often slashed right across ethnicities. It is worthy to note additionally that autonomous clans and well-governed kingdoms existed in Africa prior to the advent of the Europeans.
2) In fashioning these states, the Europeans, without the benefit of historical complexities, often bunched together nations (read tribes) or cultural badges which have little or nothing in common; which are already dead-set in their ways; and which have already evolved fairly unique and indigenous systems of government. Indeed these ethnicities (often the word "tribe" is used derogatorily to describe African nations whereas the Igbo nation within Nigeria for instance far outnumbers many so-called nations in Europe), should have been left ALONE to grow at their own pace.
3) The recent actions by the international body in redrawing or reclassifying Bakassi has shown that peaceful separation of Nigeria's fractious component nations is possible. It has put a lie to years of propaganda whereby young minds were fed garbage about the inviolability of Nigeria's borders. The geographical expression called Nigeria has no real allegiance; it can be arbitrarily redrawn, restructured or dissolved. Such scenarios ought not fill anyone with worry. Indeed, this should be a source of deep reflection to those Nigerians who, due to ignorance, propaganda or selfishness, have over these years internalized the erroneous notion that Nigeria's unity bears some sacredness or is perhaps simply unchallengeable. The truth is that the component nations which have existed for thousands of years in the geographical entity called Nigeria is the real source of sovereignty and should be the real beneficiary of patriotic nationalism.
4) Just like Biafra in 1967 deserved autonomy and her right to self-determination, the people of Bakassi Peninsula likewise deserve autonomy or in the very least, a referendum to determine to which country they should belong to. You cannot separate a people from their land. The manner in which the opinion of the people of this area were ignored or the extent to which their affair was left to the vagaries of international legal wrangling leaves much to be desired. If anything, it indicts the parties involved namely Nigerian lawyers, Camerounian lawyers and the panelists at the ICJ of gross negligence and perhaps nonchalance with respect to the wishes of the indigenous people. It forcibly reminds one not only of Africa's colonial experience, but it gives weight to Pan-Africanist notions of continued colonial exploitation and the hamfisted readiness of Europeans to meddle in ways which have tangibly bollixed up the efforts of African enclaves desirous of genuine autonomy or self-determination.
Ultimately, as a testament to the influence and might of the UN-supported International Court of Justice, the despondent indigenes of Bakassi may have to leave the land of their forefathers to take up residence somewhere else in Nigeria. Or, they may suffer the indignity of being another tiny English-speaking coastal minority in Cameroun's french-dominated realpolitik. However, we should not forget that all around us in other continents of the world, tiny groupings of people are being allowed their right to self-determination under the UN charter. It is beffuddling therefore why a proposition for statehood for Biafra, the Niger-Delta, or Bakassi (for that matter) has continued to elicit inaction from the UN as if such an undertaking is an indeterminate adventure into a veritable terra incognita.
Perhaps, like a good friend opined, only when needless bloodletting in African communities sufficiently tortures the conscience of a passive UN will the status quo be revised or changed. Human rights groups are very much aware of the injustices against African groups seeking autonomy. On the floor of the UN are faithfully accurate reports of aggrieved component nations beckoning on the UN to act in their official capacity to stem the tide of violence or at least to conduct a plebisicite on the question of statehood. The nagging question of the UN's inexplicable dormancy therefore assumes negative undertones especially when you consider that Montenegro (with a population less than 1 million) just recently joined the comity of independent nations. What reason if any should Nigeria's component ethnic nationalities seeking autonomy (like Biafra, Oodua or the Niger-delta) not be accorded the same full measure of UN/UN security council support and oversight?
