i pray for them!!!!!!!

Another case lies before the ICJ after the brouhaha.

Okija_juju: I smell a beatdown..

The Camerounian Gerndamarie, Navy and Army would use these f'ools for target practice.. I hope they have properly thought this through..
I doubt any country would back them up!! Nigeria has since handed over the penninsula to the Cameroonians, so I doubt they would intervene in the resultant massacre..

I really hope they know what they are doing.. I would hate to see one ignorant Nigga drag alot of innocent people into a precarious situation for selfish gains.

i use to think u were smart, how can u just handover people like that, are they animals? Dnt they have rite as you do, nigeria govt handed them over to cameroon without thinking about the people's welfare. Crazy pdp govt.

HammedSodiqq: While we sympathize with their cause, we urge them to follow due process as anything that will disrupt the unity of this Country will not be accepted. Govt will surely do something in this regard.

pls o, are u a member of the federal cabinet....cause u just spoke like one?

Okija_juju: I smell a beatdown..

The Camerounian Gerndamarie, Navy and Army would use these f'ools for target practice.. I hope they have properly thought this through..
I doubt any country would back them up!! Nigeria has since handed over the penninsula to the Cameroonians, so I doubt they would intervene in the resultant massacre..

I really hope they know what they are doing.. I would hate to see one ignorant Nigga drag alot of innocent people into a precarious situation for selfish gains.

there is nothing like selfish gains in this matter jorh. It's simply a collective gain if the get what they want. I don't know if Ojukwu was selfish.

ebamma: na mumu dey worry them,if them go war with cameroun,cameroun army go just use them do target practice.

Better to die as a gallant soldier than as a coward. This is the only way.

Enu osee oh bakassi. Anyway sha, we gat ur back

This is an exercise in futility as Cameroonians are going to deal with them ruthlessly! They alongside other Niger-Deltas had the opportunity to join force with Biafra but were deceived in supporting "one Nigeria" project. If they had allowed Biafra access to other countries through their waterways and border, it would have been a different story today. Since Bakassians are just waking up from slumber, I say: Good morning Bakassi! Good morning Niger-Delta!! Good Morning Nigeria!!!

Billyonaire: There is a local Government called Bakassi Local Government Area in Cross River State. Even at that, OBJ had no problems sacrificing a people for Oil block deals with Cameroun. Bakassi was a part of Nigeria until OBJ traded their land in exchange of Oil Blocks on the Peninsula to Cameroun. The Bakassians have been rendered homeless, refugees and Stateless for about a decade. Will we blame a free people for seeking Nationhood ? Nigerian Government disowned Bakassi and by extension its people. So, dont call it a secession, because Bakassi was abandoned 10yrs and have been state-less by any standard. From all I understand, there is nothing in Bakassi to show that Nigeria cared about them before and after the OBJ blood for Oil deal. If Bakassi had no Oil, life would have been better for them and they would have remained Nigerians. But, the Cabal that owns oil blocks, mostly Hausas wont let us be one Nation anymore. The cheating is too damn much.

Ori Obasanjo lo si ma opolopo ninu yin. Obasanjo's God will still strike most of you ignoramuses. When did OBJ sell out Bakkasi for Oil block? Was it not Gowon who had an agreement with Cameroon during the Civil War? I am tired of all these kids who would rather watch Ramsy Noah than read a book.

Una tink say if d war start 9ja no go get involve? 9ja army, navy & air force get ready o.....Tins fall apart

i smell war

Billyonaire: There is a local Government called Bakassi Local Government Area in Cross River State. Even at that, OBJ had no problems sacrificing a people for Oil block deals with Cameroun. Bakassi was a part of Nigeria until OBJ traded their land in exchange of Oil Blocks on the Peninsula to Cameroun. The Bakassians have been rendered homeless, refugees and Stateless for about a decade. Will we blame a free people for seeking Nationhood ? Nigerian Government disowned Bakassi and by extension its people. So, dont call it a secession, because Bakassi was abandoned 10yrs and have been state-less by any standard. From all I understand, there is nothing in Bakassi to show that Nigeria cared about them before and after the OBJ blood for Oil deal. If Bakassi had no Oil, life would have been better for them and they would have remained Nigerians. But, the Cabal that owns oil blocks, mostly Hausas wont let us be one Nation anymore. The cheating is too damn much.

I think the story of Bakassi and the oil rich pennisula is way more than what you know... I learnt that the land has always belonged to cameroon and was only in Nigeria because of some political and colonial clusterfuck of decisions.

tosank:

Ori Obasanjo lo si ma opolopo ninu yin. Obasanjo's God will still strike most of you ignoramuses. When did OBJ sell out Bakkasi for Oil block? Was it not Gowon who had an agreement with Cameroon during the Civil War? I am tired of all these kids who would rather watch Ramsy Noah than read a book.

The fact still remains that the people and land which has always been under the care of the Nigerian nation was so easily given over to Cameroon, without denying that the relevant treaties and agreements declare to be inside Cameroon border. No one can deny French influence but OBJ is known to be more resilient than what he demonstrated during the IJC saga. My conclusion would be that the France/Cameroon coalition hoodwinked, blackmailed struck a under table agreement with OBJ .
Reminds me of falkland islands, self determination is most important

Okiki_Oluwa: What is going on here?
Is this the disintegration that they talked about? Ogoni, Bakassi, who's next? Na so every group wan dey tear apart from Nigeria?
FMJ!

USA might be right afterall, let's watch and see what's going to happen before the end of 2015.

I see nigeria going back to pre 1914. We will have more than 200 countries from this cesspit called nigeria

Nigeria's all expected division-in-Progress.

The land has always belonged to Cameroun (there are old 19th century maps that prove this), but it was occupied by Nigerians as a result of migration (same thing happened in the Adamawa area).

However, the best bet the Bakassi people have is to study Ken Saro-Wiwa's model of awareness building and gathering support. They will most likely lose any armed conflict (although they may be able to hold out for some time if they opt for guerrilla tactics) because France has a lot riding on the oil that is in Bakassi Land.

I'll post an article that explains the history of the Bakassi area (hope I don't get banned).

tosank:

Ori Obasanjo lo si ma opolopo ninu yin. Obasanjo's God will still strike most of you ignoramuses. When did OBJ sell out Bakkasi for Oil block? Was it not Gowon who had an agreement with Cameroon during the Civil War? I am tired of all these kids who would rather watch Ramsy Noah than read a book.

who finally handed it over (just because of ICJ rule) or because of his third term to look good in d face of international diplomats or what? How many courts injuction has OBJ adhere to here in Nigeria if not for selfish interest. We knw it started frm Gowon bt ignomorously gave it out?

Gej should just sit back and allow the indigenous people to this useless geographical expression called nigeria to determine their fate and destiny.

Craving your indulgence here. But is the case of Bakassi really over? Stumbled on the article below.


News Introduction:
The resolution of the House of Representatives that the Nigerian government should seek a review of the judgement of the International Court of Justice, ICJ sitting in The Hague, The Netherlands, which ceded Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon, rekindles debate on the chances of the federal government to win back the peninsula . - By Emma Alozie

If [/b]the [b]Nigerian government decides to appeal for the review of the October 10, 2002 judgement of the International Court of Justice, ICJ, which ceded Bakassi Peninsula, a Nigerian territory, to Republic of Cameroon based on the resolution of the House of Representatives, she may not be first country to have done so. At least, three other countries – Tunisia, El-Salvador and Bosnia Herzegovina had at one time or the other approached the ICJ for a review of its earlier judgements. These facts were acknowledged by the House of Representatives in its resolution.

The demand for the review of the 2002 judgement was made by Essien Ayi, who represents Calabar-South/Bakassi federal constituency of Cross River State in the House of Representatives. Ayi told his colleagues that ICJ erred in its judgement, when it ceded the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon by relying on the 1913 Anglo-German treaty, which he said contravened Article 6 of the 1884 General Act of Berlin Conference. “One of these facts is that the 1913 Anglo-German treaty relied upon by the ICJ to cede Bakassi to Cameroon is in breach of Article 6 of the General Act of Berlin Conference that enjoined European powers ‘to watch out the preservation of the native tribes and not to take over or effect transfer of their territory,” the lawmaker observed.
Article 61(1) of the ICJ statutes states that “An application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some facts of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.” The statutes went further to stipulate in Section (5) that “No application for revision may be made after the lapse of 10 years from the date of the judgment.”[b] The ICJ judgement was delivered on October 10, 2002. This means that Nigeria has up till October 10, 2012 to appeal against the judgement.
[/b]

Experts are, however, of the view that seeking for a review of the judgement may be an exercise in futility. Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, NHRC, Dr. Chidi Odinkalu said the call by the House for the reviews lacked basis in international law. “I think when the Honourables look more closely at the applicable laws, they may realise that such a resolution is entirely without bases in international law and could degrade the quality of our international standing.”
This was the same view held by Sebastian Hon, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN. Hon said the amount of time that had passed since 2002 till now made the move look ridiculous. He said the House of Representatives’ resolution did not only come too late, it was also capable of causing Nigeria moral dents in the international community. “The ICJ judgement has made both parties to the dispute to change their positions. Nigeria has also officially complied with the judgement. Any attempt to challenge or torpedo the status quo will wrought serious moral dents on our international image. Mind you that the judges that will sit on such appeal are also human beings and are also an important segment of the enlightened international community. The resolution is belated chiefly because equity aids the vigilant,” Hon said.
Two of the three cases cited share some similarity with Nigeria. In 1982, the ICJ delivered judgement in the boundary dispute between Tunisia and Libya. The dispute was over the Continental Shelf, which passes through the most westerly point of the Tunisian coastline between Ras Cubiti and Ras Ajdir, the most westerly point on the shoreline (low-water mark) of the Gulf of Gabes. The case was decided in favour of Libya. Tunisia later approached the ICJ for a review of the judgment. The country argued that the resolution of the Libyan Council of Ministers on March 28, 1968, which determined the ‘real course’ of the north-western boundary of a petroleum concession, granted by Libya known as Concession No. 137, to which reference is made in the judgment, especially in the operative part was unknown either to the Court or to the Tunisian government before the delivery of the judgment. It affirmed that the real course of that boundary was very different from that resulting from the various descriptions given by Libya to the Court during the proceedings leading up to the 1982 Judgment.
It also observed that the delimitation line passing through point 33° 55’ N 12° E would allocate to Libya areas of continental shelf lying within the Tunisian permit of 1966, contrary to what had been clearly decided by the court, whose entire decision, was based on the idea of alignment between the permits and concessions granted by the two parties and on the resultant absence of any overlapping of claims up to 1974.
But the ICJ held that the new evidences brought by Tunisia under which she sought for the review of the earlier judgment were inadmissible and subsequently dismissed the case.
The judgement in the land dispute between Honduras and El-Salvador on the land, Island and Maritime Frontier was delivered in 2002 in favour of Honduras. Ten years later, El-Salvador went back seeking a review based on what it believed was new evidence. The ICJ justices by four votes to one ruled that the application submitted by the Republic of El Salvador for revision, under Article 61 of the Statute of the Court, was inadmissible.

The case between Yugoslavia and Bosnia Herzegovina, which was delivered in 2001, was on genocide.
Article 6 of the 1884 Berlin Conference upon which Nigeria would seek for the review of the 2002 judgement states that, “All the Powers exercising sovereign rights or influence in the aforesaid territories bind themselves to watch over the preservation of the native tribes, and to care for the improvement of the conditions of their moral and material well-being, and to help in suppressing slavery, and especially the slave trade. They shall, without distinction of creed or nation, protect and favour all religious, scientific or charitable institutions and undertakings created and organised for the above ends, or which aim at instructing the natives and bringing home to them the blessings of civilisation.”
But the ICJ justices based their decision on the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty. Paramount ruler of Bakassi Peninsula, Etinyin Etim Okon Edet told this magazine that the ceding of the oil rich peninsula without the involvement of Bakassi natives was an infringement on their rights. “Ceding Bakassi without a plebiscite is an infringement on our collective rights as a people as expressly guaranteed by the United Nations Charter on Human Rights.” Etinyin Edet said with or without the federal government, Bakassi people were ready to take their fate into their hands. “Bakassi youths have threatened that before October 2012, they will take back Bakassi through every possible means. I have tried my best from the day of the ICJ judgement till today to maintain peace and order; I can no longer guarantee that peace.”
At the time the judgement was delivered, many legal opinions believed that something was wrong with the judgement. Chief Richard Akinjide, who led the Nigerian legal team to the court at The Hague, described the judgment as “50 percent international law and 50 percent international politics.” Akinjide, former minister of justice and attorney general of the federation, said the judgement was “blatantly biased and unfair, a total disaster” and a “complete fraud”. The director-general of Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, NIIA, Professor Bola Akinterinwa also observed that the ruling was political. “It seems to be a resultant of what the French people call a ‘magouille,’ that is a decent fraud and this is not the first time this has happened.” The Guardian Newspaper in its editorial called it an international conspiracy of the highest order. “A rape and unforeseen potential international conspiracy against Nigerian territorial integrity and sovereignty” and “part of a Western ploy to foment and perpetuate trouble in Africa,” the paper added.
The Nigerian case seems to have been complicated by the ratification of the Green Tree Agreement by the Nigerian government. The chairman of Bakassi local government, Dr. Ekpo Ekpo Bassey said the speedy ratification of the Green Tree Accord was a clear violation of the 1999 constitution. “We did not expect the federal government to implement the judgement in a hurry because the Green Tree Agreement should have been ratified by the National Assembly. Bakassi was ceded on October 10, 2002 and Nigeria was expected to make a case for the review of the judgment six months before the expiration of 10 years; unfortunately this has not been done.”

Former President Obasanjo came under heavy knock for the speed he ratified the Green Tree Accord without recourse to the National Assembly. [/b]Chairman of the Nigeria-Cameroon Mixed Commission, [b]Prince Bola Ajibola said the former president “acted unilaterally and contrary to the 1999 constitution. No head of state or president has the right to approve any treaty or to cede any part of Nigeria without complying with the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution. Besides, no part of the country can be ceded to any foreign country without the approval of the legislature and the approval of the people of the affected part of the federation.”

[b]Section 12 of the 1999 constitution expressly states that “No treaty between the federation and other country shall have the force of law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly.” Former chairman, senate committee on information, Senator Ayogu Eze observed that “In law, Bakassi is still part of Nigeria because the areas supposedly ceded are all listed in the Constitution. Unless the Constitution is amended, the areas remain part of the country.”
[/b]The problem of Bakassi can be traced to the ‘Treaty of Protection’ Queen Victoria of England signed with the King and Chiefs of Akwa Akpa, known to Europeans as “Old Calabar,” on September 10, 1884. This enabled the United Kingdom to exercise control over the entire territory around Calabar, including Bakassi. The territory subsequently became de facto part of the Republic of Nigeria, although the border was never permanently delineated. However, in 1913, the English and the Germans signed a treaty at Obokum by Hans Detzner, representing Germany, and W. V. Nugent, representing Britain. It addressed the precise demarcation of the Anglo-German Boundary between Nigeria and Kamerun from Yola to the Cross River. Then in the 1961 plebiscite, Southern Cameroons voted to leave Nigeria and become a part of Cameroon, but Bakassi remained under Calabar administration in Nigeria.

[b]In the Maroua Declaration of 1975, the then Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon and his Cameroonian counterpart, Ahmadu Ahidjo, signed an agreement accepting that Bakassi was a part of Cameroon in what many believe was a gratitude for the role played by Ahmadu Ahidjo in suppressing the Biafran secessionist war.
[/b]On March 29, 1994, Cameroon asked the ICJ to determine the course of the maritime frontier between Nigeria and Cameroon. Also in the June the same year, Cameroon asked the court to determine on a definitive basis, Nigerian-Cameroon frontier from Lake Chad to the Sea and to order the withdrawal of Nigerian troops from the disputed peninsula. Although on December 13, 1995, Nigeria raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the court and to the admissibility of Cameroon’s claims. The ICJ rejected on June 11, 1998, seven out of the eight preliminary objections raised by Nigeria and declared that it had jurisdiction to prosecute the case.
Then on October 10, 2002 in a 150-page ruling, Gilbert Guillaume, President of the ICJ, said, “the court decided that pursuant to the Anglo-German Agreement of March 11, 1913, sovereignty over Bakassi lies with Cameroon.” Consequently, “the court requests Nigeria expeditiously and without condition to withdraw its administration and military or police forces from the area of Lake Chad falling within Cameroonian sovereignty and from the Bakassi peninsula.”

The Bakassi case is one that may continue to hunt the country for a very long time to come.

www.nigeriannewsworld.com/content/bakassi-review-how-far-can-nigeria-go+is+there+appeal+agaist+the+icj+decision+for+cession+of+bakassi+to+cameron&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hIkt-Poa4pkJ:www.nigeriannewsworld.com/content/bakassi-review-how-far-can-nigeria-go+is+there+appeal+agaist+the+icj+decision+for+cession+of+bakassi+to+cameron&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari

Okija_juju:

I wish I could say I had any thoughts about you, unfortunately, I dont even have any clue who you are.. I suggest you go and read books, historic facts and all about the Bakassi land and the dispute. Its a situation that cant be explained away with a simple 'why did you hand the land over'.
Giving that piece of land back to Cameroon where it rightly belonged was the best decision we made.

Cos Nigeria can't afford to fight war with Cameroon. I doubt if Nigeria can survive as an entity is they fight a 1yr war with Cameroon

For those who can't read the entire article (and just in case I get banned) you can get to the article by clicking this link http://www.dawodu.com/bakassi2.htm

Make Igbos fold hand dey watch jor. We had no allies. . . . We have no allies!

no matter how powerful Cameron is they will still count the lost cost these people are ready to fight to death. it is there right.....

Gowon, OBJ and all the useless military rulers should be held accountable for this mess.

sinetheta: no matter how powerful Cameron is they will still count the lost cost these people are ready to fight to death. it is there right.....

They won't have to fight with guns, the UN should be lobbied for the rigth to self determination and rule.

I know they will succeed!