08-11-02 One cannot but sympathise with Nigeria, a nation beset with self-inflicted numerous problems of corruption, human right abuses, imposition of sharia, unending executive-legislative misunderstandings culminating in an unending impeachment saga.
The external forces are not only formidable but envious of the abundant resources at the disposal of Nigeria which have unfortunately been misapplied and wasted by leaders who are bereft of ideas and foresight. The serious additional complication that Nigeria has to battle with from now henceforth has to do with the unfortunate and controversial judgement of the World Court at The Hague by which Bakassi was arbitrarily awarded to Cameroon.

The disinvestiture and disinheritance of Nigeria of Bakassi can validly be classified as the continuation of the partition of Africa to suit the whims of Europe. The partition of Africa and the resultant colonisation have left deep wounds on the human psyche of Africans, as many nationalities were jumbled together without their express permission.
The forceful alignment of nationalities of differing culture, language and religion has resulted in serious instability and internecine tribal wars. The International Court of Justice which sat over the Nigeria-Cameroon border dispute has merely continued with the process as the consent of the inhabitants, native to the island was not sought before delivering a judgement that relied heavily on the action and inaction of the British and Germans in the 19th century.
Most of these treaties were enacted behind the backs of the people concerned, a case of shaving the heads of Africans behind their backs, one might say. It is therefore unfortunate that the partition of Africa can continue under our very eyes in the 21st century.

In an effort to trivialise this matter and blame President Olusegun Obasanjo, some uninformed Nigerians especially from the ACF are already attempting to put the blame for the loss of Bakassi at his feet and that of his administration for failureto put a strong defence, forgetting that the forces against Nigeria in the struggle for Bakassi are formidable. Some others are blaming Gowon for ceding of the island to Cameroon in 1975 by the Marona treaty after the Biafran war as a compensation for blocking the eastern exit of the Biafran soldiers.
Whatever anybody might say about the indiscreet action of Gowon, it must be noted that the external forces against Nigeria in respect of the oil-rich Bakassi island are so formidable and overwhelming that this is not the time to apportion blames. But one fact that cannot be glossed over is that the reality on the ground in Bakassi is different from the political judgement being forced down the throats of Nigerians by foreigners living many kilometres away.

But Nigerian leaders in all spheres of life must carry the can of blame for what is our fate today. It must be restated that the judgement against Nigeria is a result of the wretched and hopeless image and the pariah status, which the biggest black nation of the world has attracted to itself. On the political scene, a nation that practices a parody of democracy can not be taken seriously; on the economic scene, the oil wealth which should have conferred respectability on us have been frittered away.
There is no appreciable improvement in our standard of living for all these years, rather Nigeria remains one of the poorest and most corrupt nation in the world. Foreign countries are envious of our position as a nation sitting on such fabulous oil wealth and are enraged that we have plundered all these without anything to show for it hence they are prepared to seize any opportunity that would make them get a piece of the action.

It must be recalled that the wars of the Middle East are fought to control the oil wells, therefore care must be taken so that the superpowers do not disrupt our lives, by turning our land into a theatre of war. In the unfolding scenario, we must not therefore rule out the conspiracy of the superpowers who gave the Bakassi judgement against Nigeria.
So if Nigeria in the past could not bring about positive changes in the standard of living of its people, one wonders what the fate of Nigeria would be if goaded into a war on Bakassi. The conspiracy of the international communities is further strengthened by the perceived actions of Great Britain, the colonial master of Nigeria, which supervised the loss of sensitive documents from the London archives with which Nigeria could have easily proved her case.
This is because judgement is based on numerous archaic treaties entered into between Britain and Germany in 1813, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1890, 1893 and 1913 as a result of which the line of demarcation shifted forward and backward. The Obong of Calabar was said to have entered into a treaty with the British who promised to protect all his territory from Bakassi up to Rio-del-Rey.

Just like the series of treaties enumerated above, the alleged ceding of Bakassi by Gowon in 1975 cannot stand as the inhabitants and the original owners of the land were never consulted. After all, the United Nations is firmly positive about the entrenchment of the principles of Fundamental Human Rights in its Laws, as such should the inhabitants of the island not be consulted? It is equally interesting to see how the World Court judgement has taken the wind off the sails of the puerile theatrics of the impeachment drama, as the fervour and enthusiasm of the dramatist personae have been severely dampened.

The interest of the French Government in the Cameroon cannot be underplayed, therefore, with the composition of the judges of the World Court headed by a French man, there was no way Nigeria could have been fairly treated. It must be recalled that Nigeria was dragged before the International Court of Justice in 1994 by Cameroon and after eight years of legal tussle, Bakassi was awarded to Cameroon on the basis of a 1913 agreement.
The judges did not avail themselves of the fact that the Cameroonians are mostly hunters and farmers in the forest,and the Efiks, the original owners of Bakassi are born fishermen. Cameroonians and Bakassi inhabitants especially the Efiks are culturally and linguistically different as both are victims of the arbitrariness of foreign treaties. The countries of Africa are equally the victims of arbitrariness of foreign treaties, as it is usually the practice for Europeans to exchange African land to settle scores in Europe.

The failure of the 1959 plebiscite to include Bakassi as part of the Southern/Eastern flank of Nigeria ceded to the Republic of Cameroon is an indisputable proof that Bakassi has always been part of Nigeria. Nigerians must accept that their officials have been careless with its handling of Bakassi in the past especially in the belated and recent inclusion of Bakassi in the local government structure and the carelessness of its cartographers to give it prominence on the maps which might be due to its difficult terrain. The availability of the black gold has no doubt made Bakassi attractive to all and sundry, but efforts should be made to avoid a Bakassi war.
Since the judgement of the International Court of Justice is advisory as against a municipal judgement which carries penalties for defaulters, Nigeria and Cameroon should meet and dialogue, and in spite of the problems of legal technicalities created by foreigners; human and political problems, the interests of the inhabitants and the owners of the land must be considered more paramount and solutions must be found to them.