Monday, October 17, 2011

THE HISTORY, CAUSES, COURSE AND POST CONFLICT RECONSTRUCTION EFFORTS OF THE NIGERIAN CIVIL WAR

THE HISTORY, CAUSES, COURSE AND POST CONFLICT RECONSTRUCTION EFFORTS OF THE NIGERIAN CIVIL WAR

ABSTRACT
This study unearths the causes of the Nigerian civil war, the course and the post-conflict reconstruction efforts of the Nigerian government.  The conflict partly caused by the 1966 coup d’état, the Aguiyi agreement/commission and a host of other minor causes.

There are many studies that have been done in the area of Nigerian civil war but this particular study will dwell on the causes, courses, post-conflict reconstruction efforts.

This study will make use of secondary sources. Books, journals, internet sources will be extensively used.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The Nigeria civil war can be regarded as a war that was fought out of necessity because the factors and causes that led to the war was sowed in the political structures and institutions in colonial times and also in emergence of the nation called Nigeria.  It carried along with it the seed.  According to Madiebo (1980, pg 3-14) “On the seed of destruction the federation of Nigeria  has never really been one homogeneous country due to the divergence of the people in terms of culture, ethnicity, religion, historical and political antecedent”. Despite these obvious facts that exist, the former colonial masters for selfish economic interest decided to forcefully amalgamate the various ethnic groups together in 1914 and for administrative convenience decided to adopt a policy of divide and rule between the various regions.

It is worthy of note that it was in this pattern of rule that Nigeria’s political institution developed which was to have a bearing effect later after independence which eventually led to the civil war.  The growth of nationalism in the society and subsequent emergence of political parties were based on ethnic/tribal rather than national interest, and therefore had no unifying effect on the people against the colonial master, Abubakar, (1992). Rather than being the victim (colonial master), it was the people themselves who were the victim of the political struggles which were supposed to be directed at removing foreign dominance.  Soon after independence the battle to consolidate political and military power and dominance by one section of the country became very intense among the ethnic group.  This led to the January coup of 1966 and the counter coup that followed and eventually a bloody civil war.

The devastating effect of the war was of high impact on the populace as an estimated 1 million people died and equally the refugees’ crisis that followed with infrastructural damage cannot be quantified. The major impact was felt in the eastern of Nigeria which tried to break away to form the Republic of Biafra under a leader called Odumegwu Ojukwu. With the fall of Biafra to Federal troops and the surrendering of her troops, the next phase was a post-war peace building effort to reconcile, rehabilitate and reconstruct as a result of the declaration of the Federal Government of “no victor, no vanquished”.

BACKGROUND HISTORY OF NIGERIA BEFORE THE WAR
The land mass known today as Nigeria existed as a number of independent and sometimes hostile national states with linguistic and cultural differences until 1900. The Governor General of Nigeria between 1920-31, Sir Hugh Clifford, described Nigeria as “a collection of independent Native States, separated from one another by great distances, by differences of history and traditions and by ethnological, racial, tribal, political, social and religious barriers." (Nigeria Council Debate, Lagos,1920). The building of Nigeria as a multi - national state began in 1900 with the creation of Northern and Southern Protectorates along with the colony of Lagos by the British government. Further effort at unification and integration was made in May 1906 when the colony of Lagos and the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria, which had existed separately, were amalgamated to become the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria.

Even then the Northern and the Southern Administration were separate and distinct. Both were independent of one another and each was directly responsible to the Colonial Office. The first momentous act of the British in the political evolution of Nigeria as a modern state was the amalgamation of the administration of the two sections of Nigeria on 1 January 1914 by Lord Lugard. For ease of governing and in the economic interest of the British, indirect rule and separate development policy were maintained in the two sections of the country, with the amalgamated administration based in Lagos. This, in effect produced two Nigeria, each with different social, political, economic, and cultural backgrounds and development within the country.  
No further constitutional development took place until 1922. The 1922 constitution made provision, for the first time, for elected members to sit on a Nigerian legislative council, but did not empower them to make laws for the North. Nigeria was divided into four administrative units in 1940; the colony of Lagos, the Northern, Eastern and Western provinces. This administrative division, with increased power for the colony and the provinces, was not only maintained but separateness was also strengthened and deepened by Sir Arthur Richardson's constitution of 1946 which inaugurated Nigeria's regionalism. It however achieved a half - hearted political breakthrough by integrating the North with the South at the legislative level for the first time.

The post Second World War political awareness and upsurge of nationalism in Africa brought about the Richardson's constitution of 1950.  Political parties were formed on regional and ethnic basis. The outcome of this was obvious: full scale regionalism. With the Macpherson's constitution of 1951, a greater measure of autonomy was granted the regions with stronger regional legislatures. With only residual powers left to the central government, Nigeria politically took a turn for the worse, and there was a possibility of three countries emerging out of Nigeria.

In 1953, the central cabinet was split over the acceptance of a target date for securing self - government with the end result of the Kano riot.  The gap between the regions widened.  For the first time the North talked openly of the possibility of secession rather than endure what they saw as humiliation and ill - treatment.  The West also threatened to secede over the non - inclusion of Lagos in the West in the new constitution.  The 1954 constitution confirmed and formalized the wishes of Nigerian leaders to move and remain as far apart as they possibly could.  The choice between Unitary and Federal options in the form of government had been irrevocably made.  The leaders settled for Federal option.  Thereafter things happened fast in the political arena.  There were constitutional conferences in 1957, 1958, and 1959 and in 1960 culminating in the granting of independence to Nigeria on October 1, 1960.

It should be noted that from 1954 onwards, the political direction was constantly away from a strong center towards a formidable, almost insulation of the regional base of each major political party.  The failure of the Willink commission to recommend the creation of more states in 1958 for the Nigerian type of federalism planted the most potent seed of instability into the evolution of Nigeria as a nation in the 1950s.  All the political leaders who had strong and firm political bases in the regions fought hard for maximum powers for the regions which weakened the center.  At the same time, the ugly embers of tribalism and sectionalism had been fanned into a deadly flame by all the political leaders.  These leaders rode on the crest of this cancerous tribalism and ignorance of the people to power, at the expense of national unity and the nation.

Instead of regionalism ensuring and preserving national unity, it became its bane. There was diffusion instead of fusion of the three units.  According to Gen. Obasanjo:  "The only point on which Nigerian political leaders spoke with one voice was the granting by the British of political independence - and even then they did not agree on the timing."  (1980:3). With the granting of independence in 1960 all the dirt that have been swept under the carpet surfaced. Nigeria was now beset by strings of political problems which stemmed from the lop-sided nature of the political divisions of the country, the type of the existing federal constitution, and the spirit in which it operated.   
The first post independence disturbance was over the defense agreement between Great Britain and Nigeria, which was seen as "an attempt (by Britain) to swindle Nigeria out of her sovereignty", by contracting with Nigeria to offer each other such assistance as may be necessary for mutual defense and to consult together on measures to be taken jointly or separately to ensure the fullest cooperation between them for this purpose.  It was viewed as an unequal treaty.  Through student demonstrations and vehement opposition by the general public and members of the Federal House of Representatives, the agreement was abrogated in December 1962.

This episode was nothing compared with later developments in the country's turbulent political history.  The general census conducted in 1962 was alleged to be riddled with malpractices and inflation of figures of such astronomical proportions that the Eastern Region refused to accept the result. A second census was carried out in 1963, and even then the figures were accepted with some reservations. Meanwhile the people of the Middle Belt area of the North had grown increasingly intolerant of the NPC rule of the North.  The Tiv, one of the major tribes in the Middle Belt, openly rioted for almost three years (1962 - 1965).  Then came the biggest crisis of them all - the general election of 1964.  The election was alleged to be neither free nor fair. All devices imaginable were said to have been used by the ruling parties in the regions to eliminate opponents.

The Chairman of the Electoral Commission himself admitted there were proven irregularities.  The President, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe refused to appoint a Prime Minister in the light of these allegations.  The President and the incumbent Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, were each seeking the support of the Armed Forces.  This marked the first involvement of the Armed Forces in partisan politics. For four anxious days, the nation waited until the President announced that he had appointed the incumbent Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, to form a broad based government.  The same could not be said of the Western Region election of 1965.  The rigging and irregularities in the election were alleged to be more brazen and more shameful.  Law and order broke down completely leading to an almost complete state of anarchy.  Arson and indiscriminate killings were committed by a private army of thugs of political parties.  Law abiding citizens lived in constant fear of their lives and properties.  

This was the state of affairs when the coup of 15 January 1966 took place.   "As an immediate cause, it might be claimed that the explosion of that day could be traced back along the powder trail to the fuse lit at the time of the Western Region election of October 1965."(Obasanjo 1980). The aim of the coup was to establish a strong, unified and prosperous nation, free from corruption and internal strife. The outcome of the half-hearted and ill-fated coup was a change of political balance in the country. Major Nzeogwu’s (the leader of the coup) aim for the coup was not borne out of its method, style and results. All the politicians and senior military officers killed were from the North and Western Region except a political leader and a senior Army officer from the Mid - West and the East respectively.

The coup hastened the collapse of Nigeria. From independence to January 1966, the country had been in a serious turmoil; but the coup put her in an even greater situation. Most of the coup planners were of Eastern origin, thus the Northerners in particular saw it as a deliberate plan to eliminate the political heavy weights in the North in order to pave way for the Easterners to take over the leadership role from them.  The sky high praises of the coup and apparent relief given by it in the south came to a sudden end when the succeeding Military Government of Maj. Gen. J.T.U. Aguiyi Ironsi, an Easterner, unfolded its plans.  If Ironsi had displayed a greater sensitivity to the thinking of the Northerners, he could have capitalized on the relief that immediately followed the coup.

But in addition to his failure to take advantage of the initial favorable reaction to the coup, he did not know what to do with the ring leaders who had been arrested. He did not know whether to treat them as heroes of the revolution or send them before a court martial as mutineers and murderers.  Military Governors were appointed to oversee the administration of the regions.  In the North the numbed favorable reaction in certain quarters turned to studied silence and a "wait and see" attitude. This gradually changed to resentment, culminating in the May 1966 riots throughout the North during which most Easterners residing in the North were attacked and killed.
A counter coup was staged by the Northern military officers on 29 July 1966 with two aims:  revenge on the East, and a breakup of the country. But the wise counsel of dedicated Nigerians, interested and well-disposed foreigners prevailed. The Head of State, Maj. Gen Aguiyi Ironsi and many other senior officers of Eastern origin were killed. After three anxious days of fear, doubts and non-government, Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon, at the time the most senior officer of Northern origin and the then Chief of Staff, Nigerian Army, emerged as the new Nigerian political leader.  The lack of planning and the revengeful intentions of the second coup manifested itself in the chaos, confusion and the scale of unnecessary killings of the Easterners throughout the country.   Even the authors of the coup could not stem the general lawlessness and disorder, the senseless looting and killing which spread through the North like wild fire on 29 September 1966.

Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon, the then Head of State, in a broadcast to the people of the North in September said;  "I receive complaints daily that up till now Easterners living in  the North are being killed and molested and their property looted.  It appears that it is going beyond reason and is now at a point of recklessness and irresponsibility." (Atofarati,1992). Before then, in an effort to stop the killings and to preserve the nation in one form or the other, an ad hoc conference of the representatives of the regions was called on 9th August, 1966 in Lagos.  The meeting made the following recommendations:
1.            Immediate steps should be taken to post military personnel to barracks within their respective regions of origin.
2.            A meeting of this committee or an enlarged body should take place to recommend in      a broad outline the form of political  association which the country should adopt in the future  
3.            Immediate steps should be taken to nullify or modify any provisions of any decree which assumes extreme centralization. 
4.            The Supreme Commander should make conditions suitable for a meeting of the Supreme Military Council urgently as a further means of lowering tension.

The first recommendation was implemented on August 13 1966.  Troops of Eastern Nigeria origin serving elsewhere in the country were officially and formally released and posted to Enugu, the capital of Eastern Region, while troops of non-Eastern origin in Enugu moved to Kaduna and Lagos. This marked the beginning of division and disunity within the rank and file of the Nigerian Armed Forces.  "This simple and seemingly innocuous action broke the last thread and split the last institution symbolizing Nigeria's nationhood and cohesion which had been regularly tampered with by the politicians since 1962. The rift between the Eastern Region and the rest of the country was total." (Obasanjo, 1980). Most of the  civilian of Eastern Region origin who had never lived in the East and would have continued to live elsewhere in the country lost confidence and moved to the East. Some of them when they arrived at their destination became refugees in their own country.

None of the other recommendations was fully implemented except nullification of the unification decree. The implementation of the recommendation with regards to the posting of troops to barracks within their region of origin was relentlessly pursued by the political leaders of Western Region after the exercise had been completed in the Eastern Region.  They were afraid of the so - called Northern troop’s domination and probably of the safety of the troops of Western Region origin.

With the troops of Eastern Region back in Enugu and the non-Eastern troops withdrawn from there, with Nigerians of non-Eastern origin driven out of the East in their own interest, and with Easterners at home and abroad returning home with news of Nigeria's brutality against them, and with the oil flowing in the Eastern Region, the way was now open for the implementation of the secession. The East and the North began a virulent of words through their radios and newspapers. Early in 1967, a peace negotiating meeting of the Supreme Military Council of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Eastern Region Military Governor, Lt. Col. Ojukwu was called under the auspices of Gen. Ankrah of Ghana in Aburi, Ghana.  As it turned out, all the other members of the council except Ojukwu were too trusting, too naive or too ill - prepared for the meeting.  Therefore Ojukwu scored a vital goal in his ambition.

Ojukwu got his way with little effort, by being the cleverest.  He was the only one who understood the issue. Step by step the others came to acquiesce in the logic of Ojukwu's basic thesis - that to stay together at all, the regions had first to draw apart. Only Ojukwu understood that this meant, in effect, a sovereign Biafra (Eastern Region) and the end of the Federation.Different versions of what happened in Aburi were released by Ojukwu in the East and by the Federal Military Government in Lagos. Ojukwu accused the Federal Government of bad faith and going back on promises. The Federal Government accused Ojukwu of distortion and half truths. After several meetings amongst the Federal and Regional officials, what amounted to the demise of the Federation was promulgated in decree No. 8 of 17 March 1967 in a desperate effort to implement the Aburi decisions and to avoid further stalemate and possible civil war. Not surprisingly, Ojukwu completely rejected Decree No. 8 as falling short of full implementation of Aburi decisions. The die was cast. All efforts to intervene by eminent Nigerians and well - wishers to Nigeria like Gen. Ankrah,  late Emperor Hallie Selassie of Ethiopia and the late Dr Martin Luther King proved abortive. 

The flurry of conciliatory meetings achieved nothing.  Gen. Obasanjo remarked:  "Ojukwu was adamant, obstinate and obdurate.  He refused to attend the Supreme Military Government meeting called in March in Benin City, Nigeria to discuss outstanding issues and deliberate on the budget for the coming fiscal year.  If he could not achieve his long cherished ambition of ruling an independent Nigeria, he could break it up and rule an independent and sovereign "Biafra."   Nothing could stop him." (1980:10).  As early as 7 June 1966, after the May incident in the North, Ojukwu was quoted as saying:   We are finished with the Federation.  It is all a question of time."  (1980:11).

Ojukwu seized the Federal Government property and funds in the East.  He planned the hijacking of a National commercial aircraft Fokker 27 on a schedule flight from Benin to Lagos.  All these and other signs and reports convinced the Federal Military Government of Ojukwu's intention to secede. Lt Col. Yakubu Gowon, the Head of Federal Government, imposed a total blockade of the East. It was realized that more stringent action had to be taken to weaken support for Ojukwu and to forestall his secession bid. Short of military action at that time, creation of States by decree was the only weapon ready to hand. The initial plan was to create States in the Eastern Region only. Such action was considered impolitic and fraught with danger. Eventually 12 States were created throughout the country on 27 May 1967.

The Eastern Region was divided into three states. The reaction from Enugu was sharp and quick:  the declaration of Eastern Nigeria as the independent sovereign state of "Biafra" on 30 May 1967.  The month of June was used by both sides to prepare for war. Each side increased its military arsenal and moved troops to the border watching and waiting until the crack of the first bullet at the dawn of 6 July 1967 from the Federal side. The war had started and the dawn of a new history of Nigeria.

CAUSES AND COURSE OF NIGERIA CIVIL WAR
The Nigerian Civil War broke out on 6 July 1967. The war was the culmination of an uneasy peace and stability that had plagued the Nation from independence in 1960. This situation had its genesis in the geography, history, culture and demography of Nigeria.  

The immediate cause of the civil war itself may be identified as the coup and the counter coup of 1966 which altered the political equation and destroyed the fragile trust existing among the major ethnic groups.  As a means of holding the country together in the last result, the country was divided into twelve states from the original four regions in May 1967.  The former Eastern Region under Lt. Col. Ojukwu saw the act of the creation of states by decree "without consultation" as the last straw, and declared the Region an independent state of "Biafra".  The Federal Government in Lagos saw this as an act of secession and illegal.  Several meetings were held to resolve the issue peacefully without success.  To avoid disintegration of the country, the central government was left with only one choice of bringing back the region to the main fold by force.

The Federal sides expected a quick victory while the Biafran saw the war as that of survival and were ready to fight to the last man. By August 1967, the war had been extended to the Mid - Western Region by the Biafran with the aim to relief pressure on the northern front and to threaten the Federal Capital, Lagos. Both sides employed Political, Diplomatic, Psychological and Military strategies to prosecute the war.

By the end of April 1969, after almost two years of bloody and destructive war, the envisioned quick victory had eluded the Federal side, the rebel enclave had been drastically reduced in size but the Biafran were still holding on.  More peace conferences were held but none achieved a cease - fire and an end to the war.  The Federals embarked on a strategic envelopment of the remaining Biafran enclave.  By the Christmas of 1969, it was obvious that the end of the civil war was near.

The self - acclaimed Head of State of Biafra, Lt. Col. Ojukwu, realizing the hopelessness of the situation fled the enclave with his immediate family members on the 10th of January 1970.  The Commander of the Biafran Army who took over the administration of the remaining enclave surrendered to the Federal Government on 14th January 1970 bringing an end to the war, secessionist attempt and bloodshed.

Several lessons were learnt from the war and these have helped in the unification, political, military and economical progress of the country.

PEACE EFFORTS TO DEESCALATE THE NIGERIAN CIVILWAR
After the civil war started, the organization of African Unity tried on its own to deescalate the conflict.  At its Kinshasa summit of 1967, a consultative omission of six heads of states headed by Emperor Haile Sellasie 1 of Ethiopia was appointed. This committee visited the Federal Government on 22 and 23 November 1967 and agreed that the secessionist should renounce secession and accepts the structure of Federal Nigeria as in Decree NO 14 of 1967, (Elaigwu J.I 1986:123).  This incensed Ojukwu and his fellow secessionists and they made it clear that Biafra’s sovereignty was not negotiable.
Further efforts were made by the Commonwealth Secretary, Mr. Arnold Smith to deescalate the conflict.  Two attempts were made to get both parties together in London failed.  He, that is Mr. Arnold Smith finally succeeded in bringing the two sides to meet in London on May 6, 1968.  This meeting eventually set the stage for the Kampala peace folks later.  The peace folks in Kampala started on 23 May, 1968 and it finally packed up and broke down at the end of May.  The Biafran side staged a walk out due to some reasons, (Elaigwu J.I. 1986:123)
(1)   That Nigeria dictates rather than negotiates terms
(2)   Nigeria attempt to take advantage of the military situation at home
(3)   Nigeria’s refusal to call for a cease fire before negotiations could continue and
(4)   Nigeria’s refusal to withdraw federal troops to their positions before the civil war
The OAU consultative committee arranged separate meetings between the two belligerents in Niamey, Niger in July.  General Gowon addressed the meetings on July 16, while colonel Ojukwu addressed I ton July 18, 1968.  Both then sides agreed to meet in Addis Ababa for move peace talks.  On August 5, Chief Anthony Enakhoro led the Nigeria delegation while Ojukwu led the Biafran delegation to Addis Ababa.  Ojukwu later withdrew for Dr. Eni Njoku to act as the leader of the Biafran side.  This talk was deadlocked and had to pack up on September 9, 1968.
A number of peace talks were undertaken by individuals and groups.  Among there were attempts by Lord Shepherd in December 1968, Mr. Marice Foley (under secretary in the foreign and commonwealth office), Lord Fenner Brockway (A British Labour Peer) and James Griffiths (A labour MP).  In January, 1969, Chief Obafemi Awolowo led a Nigerian delegation to London to hold discussions with the secessionists, again this failed.  There was another major attempt in April, 1969 at Monrovia where the OAU mission again met but failed to resolve the issue.
There was the OAU Assembly of states in Addis Ababa on 6 September, 1969.  Eliagwu J.I. 1986:125 “The assembly resolved that both sides of the Nigerian conflict should negotiate for a united Nigeria so as to restore peace and stability to the country”.  Gowon stated categorically at this meeting that, there could be no peace unless the secessionists.
(1)   Renounced secession; and
(2)   Accepted the twelve states structure as the basis for the future existence of Nigeria groups.
The conflict finally deescalated by the formal surrender of the Biafran troops led by Major General Philip Effiiong.  General Ojukwu having fled the country to Abidjan on the 11th of January, 1970 handed the reins of power to Gen. Effiong. On Monday 12 January 1970, General Effiong announced the surrender of Biafra and formerly submitted and surrendered to Gen. Gowon in Lagos at the Dodan Barracks on the 15th January, 1970.  A former document stating the terms of surrender as quoted in Obasanjo O. (1980:134), Eliagwu J.I. (1986:135).

I, Major General Philip Effiong, officer administering the government of the Republic of Biafra now wish to make the following declaration:
(a)   That the Republic of “Biafra” hereby renounces secession and ceases to exist;
(b)   That we affirm we are loyal Nigerian citizens and accept the authority of the Federal Military Government of Nigeria;
(c)   That we accept the existing twelve-state structure of the federation of Nigeria;
(d)   That any future constitutional arrangement will be worked out by the representative of the people of Nigeria.

THE POST CONFLICT RECONSTRUCTION EFFORT
The Federal Military Government set up the National Commission for Rehabilitation in March 1968 mainly to take care of post-war reconstruction and rehabilitation, Obasanjo (1980:164).  This commission performed useful supplementary functions in the administration of the liberated areas in form of social reconstruction, intensive vocational training co-operative society, and liaison with employers, fostering of children and mining of health rehabilitation centers.
Rehabilitation and reconstruction of war damages commenced simultaneously as per the orders of Gen. Gowon.  General Gowon proclaimed that there was no victor, no vanquished in order to rehabilitate the Igbos back into the Nigerian fold, former civil servants were incorporated into the relevant public services of the Federation (Eliagwu J.I., 1986:137), and former Biafra officers were reabsorbed back into the Nigerian army (Obasanjo 1980:143).  The Nigerian officers that participated in the January 1966 coup and those that helped the secessionist forces to invade the former Midwest were detained for a further period (Balogun O. 1973:113).  There was also the urgent need to resettle farms, reopen factories and facilitate the resumption of normal economic life.
Under the three “Rs”, Reconciliation, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation there was the need to restore electricity, water, transport and communication.  General Gowon called for volunteers, doctors, nurses, engineers, technicians, builders, plumbers, mechanics, administrators and skilled hands (Eliagwu 1986:141) to assist in the reconstruction process.  Federal government troops went about carrying food to where it was most needed and to refugees wherever possible.
There was also the problems rehabilitation and resettlement.  The Igbo’s that left their homes and businesses had these returned to them, and rent that was collected was given to them, helping them to resettle.  The federal government spent quite an appreciable amount of money with regards to rehabilitation, reconstruction and resettlement.  Between 1970 – 1971, about N120 million worth of cash and materials had been expended (Ibid pg 144).  There was also a post-war Nation Reconstruction and development plan for 1970 – 1974 which was launched on 1970 with definite objectives and priorities.  Various government buildings received funds for its reconstruction.  The University of Nsukka received N12 million for its reconstruction, N6 million was spent on rehabilitation of industries.  The African Continental Bank (ACB) was granted N5 million for its reopening (Ibid pg 145).
Through massive federal aid, external assistance and efforts of the war affected areas in self-help, Nigeria recovered faster than could have been expected in reconciliation, reconstruction and rehabilitation.




CONCLUSION
The Nigeria civil war may have come and gone but the legacy of the war and the lessons learnt should enable the nation to be able to maintain a balance and focus both politically and socio-cultural, religious and ethnic integration, tolerance and understand.
As we have seen in the course of the study, the amalgamation of the nation was born out of economic and political interest of the colonial master and not to promote socio-cultural, religious, ethnic and political integration or unity of the heterogeneous societies.  Even after the amalgamation, the policy of divide and rule system adopted in the governing of the southern and northern protectorate did not do the nation any good but further created a dichotomy between the north and south in terms of religious and ethnic divergence.  This obvious situation led to political suspicious and rivalry during the colonial era and in turn heated up the politics at the time which brought about unhealthy competitions in political participations by various ethnic groups during and after colonialism.  With tribal sentiment at its height immediate after independence and corruption wide spread among political office holders, it became clear that the demise of the first Republic was inevitable.
The 15th January 1966 coup with some other events that followed were just the catalyst needed to create a volcanic eruption of ethnic clashes laying in wait to happen which was to lead to the civil war of 1967 in Nigeria.  But in all, it would be right to say that the civil war was inevitable because the seeds that led to the war was sown in the colonial policies which were inherited at independence by the founding fathers and which they failed to see or understood or deliberately ignored due to the quest for political dominance by various major ethnic group.  In all we can say that they were the losers and the nation was to suffer for it in the long run.



REFERENCES
Major Alexander A. Madiebo, (1980).  The Nigerian Revolution and the Biafran War, Enugu, Fourth Dimension Publishing Co. Ltd.

Major Abubakar A. Atofarati (1992).  The Nigeria Civil War, causes strategies and lessons learnt, student: US Marine Command and Staff College (Academic for 1991/1992.

Microsoft Encerta Premium (2007) Archive Article, 1968; Nigeria: Civil War Background.

Eliagwu J.I. (1956), “Gowon” Ibadan, West Books Publishers Limited.

Balogun O. (1975), “The Tragic Years:  Nigeria in Crisis 1966 – 1970; Benin City, Ethiope Publishing Corporation.

Obasanjo O. (1980), “My Command:  An Account of the Nigerian Civil War, 1967-1970”, Ibadan, Heinemman Books.

Monday, April 4, 2011

THE NIGERIAN- CAMEROUNIAN BORDER CONFLICT (THE BAKASSI PENINSULA CONUNDRUM)

THE NIGERIAN- CAMEROUNIAN BORDER CONFLICT (THE BAKASSI PENINSULA CONUNDRUM)

1.     ABSTRACT

The African territories that have attained independence and national sovereignty, cannot in a strict sense, be regarded as national states. They do not embrace a common past and a common culture; they are indeed the arbitrary creations of the colonialists. The manner in which European nations descended on Africa during the closing years of the nineteenth century in their scramble for territory was bound to leave a heritage of artificially controlled borderlines, which now demarcate the emergent African states. Separatist and irredentist movements are based on ethno-cultural foundations but manifest most often in struggles for resource control. An example of this phenomenon is the Bakassi Peninsula – an area rich in oil reserves and other natural resources – which became a continuous bone of contention between the Cameroonian and Nigerian states soon after independence. It is the intention of this study to demonstrate that the international agreements of the era of the scramble for Africa are sources of conflict among African states.

1.     INTRODUCTION

The Bakassi peninsular is an area of some 1,000 km of mangrove swamp and half submerged islands protruding into the Bight of Bonny, (previously known as the Bight of Biafra). Since 18th century, the peninsular has been occupied by fishermen settlers most of whose inhabitants are Efik-speaking people of Nigeria (Anene, 1970:56). Since 1993, the peninsula, which apart from oil wealth also boasts of heavy fish deposit, has been a subject of serious dispute, between Nigeria and Cameroun with score of lives lost from military aggressions that have been mostly instigated by Cameroon (Saturday Punch, Olumide, 2002: 4). The territorial dispute erupted into violence in May 1981, and intermittent skirmishes continued to take place until the matter was resolved. Nigeria apparently claimed that in 1884 the chiefs of the area accepted British protection, but did not relinquish sovereignty. It also maintains that the 1913 agreements that delimited the boundary from Yola to the sea were never ratified. The matter, however, took a legal turn on March 24, 1994 when Cameroun instituted a suit against Nigeria at the International Court of Justice, at the Hague, seeking an injunction for the expulsion of Nigerian force, which it said were occupying the territory and to restrain Nigeria from laying claim to sovereignty over the peninsular.

2.     BACKGROUND AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The genesis on dispute over Bakassi is a legacy of imperialist colonial rule and neo-colonial regimes in Africa. For their selfish economic, political and strategic calculations, the imperialist capitalist powers, Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, etc, in the 19th century partitioned and divided African territories and peoples among themselves without the least consideration to the language, social and cultural affinities of the African peoples. In many instances, the same ethnic nationality found itself divided into two or more colonial territories and ruled by different colonial masters. (www.socialistworld.net).  (What an absurd arrangement?)
The whole boundary dispute began when the Obong of Calabar signed a "Treaty of Protection" with Britain on September 10, 1884, Britain then agreed to "extend its protection" to the Obong and his Chiefs. The Obong agreed and promised to refrain from entering into any agreements or treaties with foreign nations or Powers without the prior approval of the British Government. That is, he signed away his Kingdom as a British protectorate. All of this was before "Nigeria" was created. Note too that unlike agreements between metropolitan powers these so called protectorate agreements with African Kingdoms did not have precise definitions of boundaries. On November 15, 1893, Britain and Germany defined their boundaries in Africa, supplemented by another agreement on March 19, 1906. These covered British and German Territories from Yola to Lake Chad.
In 1900, 1903 and 1906, key declarations made - and militarily enforced - which created the colonies of 'Northern Nigeria' and 'Southern Nigeria' (inclusive of the Colony of Lagos). The Obong of Calabar was neither consulted nor did he resist. This was all conducted between metropolitan powers and they understood what they were doing. "Protectorates" became "Colonies". (www.dawodu.com/thebakassistoryPart1.htm).
In 1913, Britain - for the colonies of "Southern" and "Northern" Nigeria - and Germany - for "Kamerun" - reached an agreement on their border from Yola to the Sea. The first of these agreements was signed in London on March 11, 1913 titled: "(1) The Settlement of the Frontier between Nigeria and the Cameroons, from Yola to the Sea and (2) The Regulation of Navigation on the Cross River". The second was signed at Obokum on April 12, 1913 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. There were eight accompanying maps.
For Bakassi (also spelled Bakasi) peninsula in particular, the Germans were interested in shrimps and an undertaking that Britain would not seek to expand eastwards. The British were interested in uninterrupted and secure sea lane access to Calabar, a key trading post. Since the Germans already had the option of using Douala environs as a port, they conceded the "navigable portion" of the offshore border to Britain. In exchange, Britain conceded the Bakassi peninsula proper to Germany. In other words, to get Germany's cooperation not to threaten access to Calabar, Bakassi peninsula was conceded by Britain.
In January 1914, "Nigeria" was created by amalgamation. Neither the Obong nor any other traditional ruler, Emir, or Chief anywhere in "Nigeria" was consulted about it let alone its borders. As was the practice then, it was done for British economic reasons - to extend the railway system of "Northern Nigeria" to the sea and to use excess tax revenues - derived from spirits - from "Southern Nigeria" to correct a budget deficit in "Northern Nigeria". British and German maps of "Nigeria" from January 1914 clearly show Bakassi peninsula in Kamerun. There was no resistance from the Obong of Calabar or his people or any other native "Nigerians" for that matter. (www.dawodu.com/thebakassistoryPart1.htm).
The First World War broke out in 1914. In 1916, Britain invaded German Kamerun. Among the Nigerian troops and carriers fighting for Britain were natives of Nigeria, including some from present Cross- River State. At the end of the war, all German territories were divided between France and Britain by the Treaty of Versailles. The League of Nations placed them under British or French mandate. The boundaries between British and French mandated Kamerun was defined by the Franco-British Declaration of July 10, 1919 by Viscount Milner, the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, and Henry Simon, the French Minister for the Colonies. In this agreement Bakassi and the rest of what became known as "British Cameroons" were placed under British mandate and administered coterminous with "Nigeria" but not actually merged. The old 1913 border was retained. To codify this further, another agreement was signed December 29, 1929 and January 31, 1930 between Sir Graeme Thomson, Governor of the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria, and Paul Marchand, Commissaire de la République Française au Cameroun. This Declaration was ratified and incorporated in an Exchange of Notes on January 9, 1931 between the French Ambassador in London and the British Foreign Minister. Again, maps from that period show the Bakassi peninsula within "British Cameroons", not the "Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria". Neither the Obong nor his people, nor any other "native Nigerians" protested.
The Second World War broke out in 1939. Native Nigerians also fought for Britain. After the war, the British and French League of Nations mandates over the Southern and Northern Cameroons and Cameroun were replaced by trusteeship agreements under the new United Nations - approved by the General Assembly on December 13, 1946. These UN agreements re-ratified the prior borders as codified by the previous Anglo-German and Anglo-French agreements. Maps from that period showed Bakassi peninsula in the Cameroons, not the real Nigeria. (www.pointblanknews.com, The Bakassi Crisis in a Historical Context by Idumange John.htm, February 22, 2010).
On August 2nd, 1946 Britain divided the Cameroons into two, called "Northern Cameroons" and "Southern Cameroons". The 1946 'Order in Council' contained detailed provisions describing the border separating these two regions, now conveniently administered from colonial Nigeria - but not part of it. In 1954, the Secretary of State for the Colonies issued a legal order defining the border between Nigeria's "Eastern region" and the "Southern Cameroons". Bakassi Peninsula was in the "Southern Cameroons", distinct from the Eastern region and the Calabar province and maps from that period show this very clearly.
In March 1959, the UN asked Britain to clarify the wishes of the people living in Northern and Southern Cameroons trusteeship territories in the run up to the "independence" of Nigeria and Cameroun. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in the Cameroons, not the real Nigeria. On January 1st, 1960 the French Cameroons became independent. Instruments creating the new country and exchange of notes between France and Cameroun rehashed all its colonial boundaries as defined by previous colonial agreements. On October 1st, 1960, Nigeria became independent. Instruments creating the new country and exchange of notes between Britain and Nigeria rehashed all its colonial boundaries as defined by previous colonial agreements. Maps dated 1960 show that the Bakassi peninsula was clearly within the "Southern Cameroons", not "Nigeria proper." (www.dawodu.com/thebakassistoryPart1.htm).
 On February 11th and 12th 1961, a plebiscite was held to "clarify the wishes of the people living in Northern and Southern Cameroons". The population of Northern Cameroons had earlier - in 1959 - "decided to achieve independence by joining the independent Federation of Nigeria", while the population of Southern Cameroons, whose plebiscite could not be done in 1959 for security reasons, now  "decided to achieve independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon" (General Assembly resolution 1608 (XV) of 21 April 1961). Note that there were 21 polling stations on the Bakassi peninsula itself and that 73% of the people living there voted to "achieve independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon". (Note the blunder here. By spelling it as "Cameroon", rather than "Cameroun", the United Nations created an opening for the people of the "Southern Cameroons" to say they never voted to join "Cameroun" which is the former French territory. (www.dawodu.com/thebakassistoryPart1.htm).
In 1962, the government of Tafawa Balewa exchanged diplomatic notes with Cameroun acknowledging the fact that Bakassi was not Nigerian territory. Maps from that period showed Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun, following the results of the 1961 plebiscite.
In January 1966, Major General Aguiyi Ironsi came to power in Nigeria. He committed his government to respect all prior international agreements made by the Balewa government. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun. In July 1966, then Lt. Col. Gowon came to power in Nigeria. He too committed his government to respect all prior international agreements made by the Ironsi and Balewa governments. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun.
In 1970, moves began to be made by independent Cameroun and post-civil war Nigeria to clarify their maritime border which was vaguely defined by the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty. Maps from that period showed Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun, but the offshore boundary was unclear since there was no detailed de-embarkation of the "navigable portion" of the approach channel to the Calabar estuary. Then Attorney General Elias correctly advised the Gowon government that post-colonial Nigeria had no legal basis for contesting the Bakassi peninsula itself, but that work to delimit the offshore boundary and vague sections of the land boundary should proceed at full speed in accordance with the original Anglo-German Treaty of 1913. The technical problem thus became deciding exactly what part was "navigable" and what was not. It is this matter that was addressed on April 4th, 1971 at Yaoundé when Nigeria's General Gowon and Cameroun President Ahidjo, accompanied by large delegations, signed the "Coker-Ngo" Line on British Admiralty Chart No. 3433 "as far as the 3-nautical-mile limit." The status of the Bakassi peninsula proper was not an issue for discussion.
On June 1st, 1975, Gowon and Ahidjo signed the Maroua Declaration for the partial extension of the 1971 maritime boundary. Again, the status of the Bakassi peninsula proper was not even an issue for discussion. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun. On July 29, 1975 General Gowon was overthrown by General Murtala Muhammed. One of the first acts of that regime was to begin to question all the domestic and foreign policy decisions made by General Gowon - including the offshore maritime border with Cameroun. In the rush to smear Gowon publicly, he was held accountable for "giving away Bakassi" - an event that had actually occurred before he was born. Murtala Muhammed’s decision to renege on Gowon's agreements with Ahidjo resonated with a section of the population which had been hoping for a way to get out of its commitments to Cameroun deriving from the 1961 plebiscite and the colonial heritage dating back to 1884. Still, Nigerian official maps from that period and continuing till today except a few that were reprinted on orders from the Ibrahim Babangida government in 1991 show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun. (www.pointblanknews.com, The Bakassi Crisis in a Historical Context by Idumange John.htm, February 22, 2010).
The rest of what transpired in 1981, 1994, 1996 and since then is well known - including General Abacha's moves to formally create an administrative set up there and all the military clashes.
3.     THE SOCIO- ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND MILITARY DIMENSION.
The peninsula of Bakassi is a tiny land strip consisting of a series of fluvial islands covering approximately 50 square kilometres and inhabited by some dozens of villages. The area in contention is a swampy peninsula projecting into the Atlantic at the Gulf of Guinea. Cameroon and Nigeria both claim sovereignty and have nourished the dispute for eight years at the International Court of Justice. Even Equatorial Guinea wants it. The dispute is, of course, about potential offshore oil resources. (Afrol News, 27, March 2002). Bakassi is an area which may contain up to 10% of the world's oil and gas reserves. It is also rich in fish which also is a source of foreign exchange earner for Nigeria and Cameroun. (www.news.bbc.co.uk, Tuesday, 13 June 2006). 
But interest over the ownership of Bakassi by Nigeria and Cameroun began immediately it was discovered that the peninsular is floating on reserves of crude oil. It was only then that the elites of the two countries started making serious claims and counter-claims over the territory. In essence, the struggle by the Nigerian and Camerounian ruling classes for ownership of the peninsula is not dictated by any so-called national interest or concern for the well-being of the residents of Bakassi. The primary motive is the rich oil reserves and fishing grounds found in the area and its strategic location in the Atlantic Ocean. If the peninsula were to be of very little economic or strategic value, neither Nigerian nor Camerounian capitalist elite would have shown any serious interest in the territory. (www.socialistworld.net/doc/403#).
The Bakassi border dispute has a military and maritime side to it. Nigerian naval officers told Reuters that the loss of Bakassi would cause severe strategic problems for the Nigerian Navy by rendering the naval base at Calibre useless. "If we lose Bakassi, we lose our eastern access to the Atlantic. Our naval ships cannot move freely to southern Africa, for instance, without Cameroon's approval, one officer said. (www.news.bbc.co.uk, Thursday, 10 October, 2002).
An objective examination of the Nigeria – Cameroon imbroglio at the Bakassi Peninsula reveals three main positions:  
  • The Bakassi problem was a creation of the imperialists, colonialists and capitalists who for selfish reasons placed the map of Africa on a table and butchered the continent for their own economic interest. The same imperialists have intensified the conflict between Nigeria and Cameroon.
  • The real issues in contention are economic and strategic. The Peninsula only became attractive when huge oil reserves were found. Again the prolific fishing grounds in the Peninsula and its strategic location at the Atlantic Ocean is another added advantage.
  • There are many Nigerian émigrés in the Peninsular. In fact it is estimated that 90 percent of the inhabitants of Bakassi are Nigerians of Efik extraction. Most Nigerians in the area are either traders, or fishermen who seek greener pastures and better means of livelihood. But the Maroua Declaration signed by Gowon and Ahidjo was to compensate Cameroon for her neutrality during the 30-month civil war in Nigeria.
Below is a diagram showing the disputed Bakassi peninsular-

Map culled from The Bakassi Story by Nowa Omogui.
4.     KEY PARTICIPANTS AND THE NATURE OF THE CONFLICT
The key participants in the border conflict are Nigeria, Cameroun, the Efik people occupying Bakassi and the International Court of Justice. Other participants are Equitorial Guinea based on their weak claim to Bakassi and Sao Tome and Principe based on maritime borders with Cameroun. Others are United States of America, Britain, Germany, and France.
The 1,690-kilometer border with Cameroon, witnessed several clashes. (Neither Cameroon nor Chad was a signatory of the ECOWAS protocols on the free movement of community citizens; hence greater border tensions existed between these countries and Nigeria. In 1981 five Nigerian soldiers were killed and three wounded when a Camerounian patrol boat fired on a Nigerian vessel off the contested Rio del Rey area, which was thought to be rich in oil, gas, and uranium deposits. Coming in the wake of an incursion by Beninese troops, this incident provoked public demands for compensation, for punitive measures, and even for war. The crisis was settled peaceably, tensions along the frontier continued, however, and in May 1987, Cameroonian gendarmes allegedly occupied sixteen border villages in Borno State until repulsed by Nigerian army units. Lagos then the Federal Capital Territory issued orders to state governors "to take military reprisals against any belligerent neighbouring country," and tension remained high until Ibrahim Babangida's December visit to Yaounde, capital of Cameroon, yielded mutual pledges of steps to prevent a recurrence of border clashes, including joint border patrols. In October 1989, Camerounian gendarmes allegedly abducted four Nigerian customs officials on routine border patrol duties. In mid-1990 boundary demarcation was still in process, and minor clashes between border residents and transients continued. Deeper divisions were apparent when Yaounde media charged Nigerian agitators with instigating illegal demonstrations in Bamenda and at Yaounde University in May 1990 and with seeking to incite a popular revolt; the Nigerian media made counter charges that Nigerians were being systematically harassed, detained, tortured, or murdered by Camerounian security forces. (www.photius.com/countries/nigeria/national_security/nigeria).
Nigeria took several measures during the 1980s to improve and to strengthen overall border management. After the 1981 clash with Cameroon, Nigeria decided to fence its entire international boundary, to enclose each border beacon, and to augment its immigration staff by 1,000. In the mid-1980s, Nigeria's 2,100 immigration officers were given a four-week weapons training course, new border posts were established, and modern border- patrol and surveillance equipment was procured. The 1984 border closure was designed to control widespread currency trafficking and smuggling. The borders reopened only after Nigeria set up trade corridors and joint border patrols with its neighbours and began a program to strengthen and expand customs and patrol posts. In late 1986, after signing phase two of the ECOWAS protocols on free movement of community citizens, Nigeria said it would deploy immigration officers to each local government to regulate movement in and out of the country and proposed to open 100 new control posts--there had been 45. In addition, Lagos planned to purchase aircraft, helicopters, boats, vehicles, and communication and surveillance equipment; the initial US$13 million phase included 25 speedboats, more than 1,400 Land Rovers and patrol cars, and 200 motorcycles. After the mid-1987 clash with Cameroon, the Nigerian army intensified its border patrols and considered permanently stationing units on the frontiers.
However, armed assaults continued to plague the Bakassi region over the years, and in expanded fields. For instance, in 1992-1993, faced with multiparty democratic challenges, and the growing militarism for Anglophone autonomy, the Cameroun government resorted to open oppression in which some Nigerian civilians in Cameroun were killed. Many were forced out of Cameroun during many embarrassing and harassing tax-drives. As Africa Confidential noted, "Nigeria's…decision to deploy a thousand troops on the peninsula was in turn a reaction to the harassment of Nigerian fishing vessels and traders by Camerounian Gendarmes." (www.postwatchmagazine.com). The Bakassi border dispute escalated with two more serious incidents of incursion that provoked more shooting, recording many casualties and deaths of soldiers of both countries. The first incident was the open hostility that broke the stalemate over Bakassi on February 18-19, 1994.  It was after this incident that Cameroun decided to take the border dispute to the International Court Justice for its adjudication. Cameroun's application was deposited on March 29, 1994, amidst accusations from Nigeria that Cameroun was not committed to bilateral negotiations to resolve the matter locally. (ibid).
After eight years, on 10 October 2002, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague ceded to Cameroun the Bakassi peninsula. Reasons given were based on the finding (based principally on the Anglo-German agreements) that sovereignty over Bakassi did indeed rest with Cameroon. It instructed Nigeria to transfer possession of the peninsula, but did not require the inhabitants to move or to change their nationality. Cameroon was thus given a substantial Nigerian population and was required to protect their rights, infrastructure and welfare. (www.en.wikipedia.org/bakassi). The verdict caused consternation in Nigeria. It aroused vitriolic comments from Nigerian officials and the Nigerian media alike. Chief Richard Akinjide, a former Nigerian Attorney-General and Minister of Justice who had been a leading member of Nigeria's legal team, described the decision as "50% international law and 50% international politics", "blatantly biased and unfair", "a total disaster", and a "complete fraud". The Guardian newspaper went further, declaring that the judgment was "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". (ibid).

  1. THE NEGOTIATION AND BARGAINING PROCESS

President Olusegun Obasanjo "denied pledging to respect a world court ruling on the disputed Bakassi peninsula," according to the BBC. (www.afrol.com). He said that he would never give such a "blank cheque". This was in contradiction to the statement he made in Paris in a meeting with the United Secretary General and President of Cameroun, Paul Biya on September 6, 2002 weeks before the International Court of Justice ruling. President Olusegun Obasanjo denied ever declaring to abide by the court ruling because of the forth coming 2003 elections. He later respected the court ruling and attended meetings geared towards withdrawing Nigerian troops in Bakassi peninsula and re-settling the residents of Bakassi.

On 2 December 2002, a United Nations-chaired panel on the Cameroon-Nigeria border dispute over the Bakassi Peninsula held its first formal session in Yaoundé. The meeting of the "mixed commission" - so named because it comprises representatives from both sides - was set to focus on establishing a programme and a calendar of work. The meeting was chaired by the Secretary-General's Special Representative for West Africa, Ahmedou Ould-Adballah. The commission was formed in response to a ruling last October on the Bakassi dispute by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which awarded Cameroon rights to the oil-rich peninsula. Following the Court's decision, Nigeria asserted that the judgment did not consider "fundamental facts" about the Nigerian inhabitants of the territory, whose "ancestral homes" the International Court of Justice had adjudged to be in Cameroonian territory. Meeting with Secretary-General Kofi Annan in Geneva in November, Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria and Paul Biya of Cameroon agreed to set up the commission to handle their differences, mandating it to consider all the implications of the ICJ's decision, including the need to protect the rights of the affected populations in both countries. (www.un.org/News).

On 3 December, 2002, a United Nations-chaired panel addressing the border controversy between Cameroon and Nigeria decided to dispatch an assessment mission to the disputed Bakassi peninsula to grasp the issues related to the countries' disagreement. The mission visited the affected areas "in order to better understand and appreciate the practical problems it would have to deal with and resolve in the course of the implementation of its mandate."
The panel also agreed to establish a sub-commission, comprising legal experts and cartographers from Nigeria, Cameroon and the United Nations, responsible for the demarcation of the land boundary between the two countries. The sub-commission also met before the end of January, 2003 and prepared a small-scale map indicating the boundary and also considered the nature and characteristics of the maps that needed to be prepared for the demarcation. (ibid)
  1. OUTCOME OF THE PROCESS
On 12 June, 2006 the presidents of Nigeria and Cameroon signed an agreement that settled the border dispute over the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula. This action followed intensive mediation by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who wants to avert a potential crisis flashpoint in already troubled West Africa. “The signing ceremony which has brought us together crowns a remarkable experiment in conflict prevention by Cameroon and Nigeria,” Mr. Annan said of the agreement which provides for the withdrawal of Nigerian troops within 60 days, with a possible 30 day extension. The agreement was reached at a ceremony at the Greentree Estate in Manhasset outside New York City, United States of America and the agreement was named the Greentree Agreement. (www.mailgroundreport.com)
Under the agreement transitional arrangements will be completed in two years for the Peninsula, which was the last of four areas to be demarcated in accordance with the ICJ decision. There were also Permanent Representatives of France, Germany, United Kingdom and the United States of America, who are witnesses and who will help implement the agreement. (www.un.org/News).
Nigeria began to withdraw its military, comprising some 3000 troops, beginning 1 August 2006, and a ceremony on 14 August marked the formal handover of the northern part of the peninsula. The remainder will stay under Nigerian civil authority for two more years. (www.en.wikipedia.org/bakassi).
The Nigerian Senate ruled on November 22, 2007 that the handover of Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon is illegal. The federal government is yet to take action. The government handed the final parts of Bakassi over to Cameroon on 14 August 2008 as planned, but a court had stated this should be delayed until all accommodations for resettled Bakassians had been settled; the government did not seem to plan to heed this court order and did set the necessary mechanisms into motion to override it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4789647.stm. The solemn handing over ceremony was observed by delegates from Nigeria and Cameroun while the international community and states served as witnesses. The final transfer of authority took place in Calabar. Fishermen displaced from Bakassi had been settled in a landlocked area called New Bakassi, which they claim is already inhabited and not suitable for fishermen like them but only for farmers. (www.en.wikipedia.org/bakassi).
Some 3,000 pillars are being planted to demarcate the border between Cameroon and Nigeria. The U.N.-sponsored project will end in 2007. The representative of the U.N. Secretary General for West Africa and chairman of the Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed Commission Said Djinnit are overseeing the project. The placement of the markers is a significant milestone in achieving lasting peace between Nigeria and Cameroun. According to Djinnit, it is a border which is meant to bring people together, not to separate them.  He says it gives people an opportunity to work freely within a context of clear borders that will prevent further disputes so that all the energies, resources of the two countries [are] channeled towards addressing the real socioeconomic problems of the people. (www.voanews.com).

The $12 million (U.S.) needed for the pillars come from a U.N. Trust Fund.  Cameroon and Nigeria are each contributing three million U.S. dollars, with Britain and the European Commission providing the rest. Technical experts are using motorbikes and canoes and are trekking over mountains and through thick forests to trace the over 2000-km boundary from Lake Chad to the Gulf of Guinea.  They say the undertaking is tedious but are optimistic their work will end next year says the report.
However, Nigerians doing business across the border still complain of harassment and extortion at the hands of Cameroonian gendarmes.  In Bakassi, the predominantly Nigerian population says its rights are not being fully protected.
  1. THE AFTERMATH OF THE PEACE PROCESS
After the peace process and the return of Bakassi to the Camerounians, the people of bakassi peninsula were always complaining of harassment by the Camerounian gendarmes. Nigerians continue to flee Bakassi everyday because of these harassments. Punch Newspaper reported that the camp in Ekpri Ikang, Cross River State has swelled to 1,500 refugees. A camp initially meant for 400 people. (Punch Newspapers, 23 March, 2009).
Apart from the harassment of the indigenes, various activities have been going on in the Bakassi peninsula like the hijacking of a Nigerian cargo ship. The hijacker’s demanded a ransom of 1.5 dollars before the ship, captain and one of the crew members can be released. Two weeks before that time a group calling itself the African Marine Commando hijacked a Chinese fishing vessel in the area with seven man crew on board. (Punch Newspapers, 30, March, 2010).
The suffering of the Bakassi people is unimaginable and their call to the federal government went unheeded. People of Bakassi then reopened the case against the federal government for compensation to the tune of N456 billion. (Punch Newspapers, 17 July, 2009). It was stated that the federal government did not carter for the people of Bakassi and the Bakassi people also wanted a new local government council. Indigenes of various states like Delta, Imo States that formerly reside in Bakassi are moving back and the various state governments have providing for them, making their life meaningful.
People are of the opinion that former President Olusegun Obasanjo that ceded Bakassi to the Camerounians never had the people of Nigeria at heart. People complained of how he signed the Greentree Agreement without getting anything for Nigeria. Allegations were made that he ceded Bakassi to Cameroun and that he would even cede his hometown Owu to the Camerounian because he never had the people of Nigeria at heart. (Punch Newspaper, 21, September, 2008) Recently, the Camerounian authorities made a claim to parts of Ogudu ranch saying that their boundary stretches down to Ogudu ranch. Gov. Liyel Imoke refuted the claim but a Commission of Enquiry has been set up to look into the issue.
As at now, Bakassi peninsula is now deserted because people have left fearing for their lives. Nigeria will hand over the peninsula to Cameroun finally by 2011 according to the Green Tree Agreement, and then the tax drives and other forms of harassment will be fully initiated.

8.     CONCLUSION

On Thursday 10, October 2002 the International Court of Justice, Hague delivered
Judgment on the disputed oil-rich Bakassi peninsula and gave ownership to Cameroun over
Nigeria. The court decision was based on the Anglo-German agreement of 11 March 1913. The court’s decision was that the boundary follows the mouth of the River Akpakorum, dividing the Mangrove Island near Ikang as far as a straight line joining Bakassi point and King point. In that judgment, the court requested Nigeria to expeditiously and without condition withdraw its administrative and military or police force from the area of Lake Chad falling within the Cameroonian sovereignty and from the Bakassi peninsula. It also requested Cameroon to expeditiously and without condition withdraw any administrative or military or police forces which may be present along the land boundary from Lake Chad to the Bakassi peninsula on territories, which pursuant to the judgment fall within the sovereignty of Nigeria.
What are the implications of this judgment for the Nigeria state? For one, there are fears that losing Bakassi to Cameroon may mean the loss of the entrance to the Calabar port to Cameroon. This is because the entrance to the Calabar port lies in the Calabar channel and going by the terms of the 1913 agreement between Britain and Germany which the World court relied upon as the authority for Cameroon’s claim to Bakassi, the channel belongs to Cameroon. Secondly, the loss of Bakassi has also placed the multi-million naira Export processing zone (EPZ) in serious danger. This is because the Calabar EPZ depends largely on this important segment, it would only mean that the port belongs to Cameroon out rightly or Nigeria will have to pay charge. There is also the danger of losing 100 million barrels of oil deposit and also four trillion cubic feet of gas deposits in the peninsula. This will be a result of the oil companies having to leave the area and relinquish the oil wells to the Cameroonians, the implication of this is that the huge revenue got from “Bakassi oil” will be lost to Nigeria. A nation striving to improve the lot of its people by adequately utilizing their sources of revenue will surely feel the severe impact of this type of judgment on the entire economy. The social implications of the ruling are that Nigerians, who have lived in Bakassi all their lives, will have to face the sad reality of having to evacuate a region that is part and parcel of them immediately. Most people living in that areas have their businesses located there and so leaving the area will mean detaching them from their source of income. Moreover, all infrastructural facilities, including hospitals, schools, recreational centres, that were originally put in place by the country stands the risk of being forfeited resulting in a fruit less effort and loss of income. Another far-reaching implication of the judgment is the strategic or security implication for the Nigerian state. The victory of Cameroon will make the nation lose its eastern access to the Atlantic. This implies that without Cameroon’s approval, Nigeria’s naval ships cannot move freely to southern Africa and for security reasons this is not too pleasant and not in the interest of the nation.
In the successive phases of the European partitioning of Africa, the lines demarcating spheres of interest were haphazard and precipitately arranged. The European agents and diplomats were primarily interested in grabbing as much African territory as possible, and were not unduly concerned about the consequences of disrupting ethnic groups and undermining the indigenous political order. Similarly to the demarcation lines imposed by the colonial powers, the International Court of Justice did not take into consideration the interests of the Bakassi indigenes when rendering its 2002 judgment. The signing of the Green Tree Agreement clearly demonstrates the ability and willingness of the international community to resolve border disputes in a peaceful and harmonious fashion, but again, did not appreciate the concerns of the indigenes of Bakassi. Nigeria and Cameroon have been commended for the matured manner they handled the Bakassi issue yet the Nigerian government cannot deny the fact that the ruling had some negative effect on the nation.
 As it is well known, several boundary disputes have broken out between African states and, so far there is no acceptable criterion which may afford the best guide to a settlement of an “Unhappy Legacy of Colonialism”. It is therefore hoped that the maturity and high level diplomacy exhibited by these two countries will be emulated by other African States with similar border problems.


REFERENCES
Africa Confidential. www.postwatchmagazine.com
Anene, J.C. 1970. The International Boundaries of Nigeria, the Framework of an Emergent African Nation. London: Longman Publishers.
Bakassi indigenes reopens N456bn suit against FG, www.punchng.com/Article.aspx?theartic=Art200907173334267.  
Border Dispute- An African Colonial Legacy, BBC News Online, Thursday, 10th October 2002. www.news.bbc.co.uk.
Cameroun Bakassi Peninsula- No War for Oil- 12/11/2002. Culled on 5th August, 2010. www.socialistworld.net/doc/403#
Camroun, Nigeria to withdraw from Bakassi, Afrol News, 24th September, 2002. www.afrol.com/News2002/cam014_nig_bakassi3.htm
Ceding Bakassi to Cameroun: How patriotic is Obasanjo, www.punchng.com/Article.aspx?theartic=Art200809212244889.
Court to rule on Nigeria- Cameroun Border Dispute. Afrol News, 27th March, 2002.
End of Cameroun-Nigeria Boundary Conflict in Sight. 
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopaedia. www.en.wikipedia.org/bakassi..
Mike Odiegwu, More Nigerians flee Camerounian gendarmes’ attacks in Bakassi, www.punchng.com/Article.aspx?theartic=Art200911244472143.
Nigeria Agrees Bakassi Handover, BBC News Online by Keith Somerville, Tuesday, 13th June, 2006. www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/default.stm.
Nigeria Cedes Bakassi to Cameroun. www.mail.groundreport.com.
“Nigeria hands Bakassi to Cameroun”, BBC News, 14th August, 2006. www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4789647.stm
Olumide, I. Oct. 12, 2002. “Letter from the Attorney General of the Federation to the Ministry of External Affairs.” Punch Newspapers, p.7
The Bakassi Peninsula: The Border Dispute between Nigeria and Cameroun by Felicia Price. ICE Case Studies, Number 163, November 2005. www.american.edu/ted/ice/nigeria-cameroun.htm#r1
The Bakassi Story, Part 1 by Nowa Omogui. Culled- 5th August, 2010. www.dawodu.com/thebakassistoryPart1.htm.
The Bakassi Crisis in a Historical Context by Idumange John. February, 22nd 2010. www.pointblanknews.com.
Nigeria’s Local and Bilateral Issues.
UN- chaired panel to visit disputed areas of Bakassi Peninsula.
Under Intensive UN Mediation, Nigeria and Cameroun Sign Accord Ending Border Dispute. www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=18825&Cr=cameroun&Cr1=nigeria#.
Yemi, K. Oct. 12, 2002. “Far-Reaching Political, Economic Implications of Bakassi    Peninsula.” Punch Newspapers, p. 7.