Bakassi:The Anguish Of A People

Gill Nsa-Abasi, Calabar

Yar'Adua and OBJ

The tension in Bakassi, the disputed territory between Nigeria and Cameroun, is palpable.

A visit there last week by Saturday Tribune showed that the people are angry with the Federal Government, the Cross River State Government, their local government authorities and their political leaders for agreeing to cede the area to Cameroun. They were so angry that it was obvious they could fight to return to Nigeria, if need be.

According to the elders of Bakassi Local Government Area in Cross River State, Nigeria, “We are victims of international politics and conspiracy.”

On October 10, 2002 judgment of the International Court of Justice at The Hague ceded the major part of the oil-rich peninsula of Bakassi to the government of Cameroun to administer and control. Even when the indigenes of the area claimed Nigeria as their country, the judgment gave their territory to Cameroun.

Since the ICJ judgment on Bakassi, the governments of both Cameroun and Nigeria have maintained what the United Nations described as a commendable approach to issues of execution of the judgment. This was because similar situations elsewhere had led to war.

The Federal Government then under former President Olusegun Obasanjo, reached out to the then Governor of Cross River State, Mr. Donald Duke, to solicit the cooperation and understanding of the affected people of Bakassi.

The options given to the people was to remain Nigerians by leaving their ancestral homes and moving to a new area, which the government promised would be made a model local government with estates and other infrastructures put in place for them. Alternatively, they could stay back in the judgment territory and pay allegiance to the government of Cameroun.

Obasanjo led Nigeria’s delegation that signed the agreement, popularly called the Green Tree Agreement, on June 12, 2006 in the United States. It contained modalities for the implementation of the ICJ judgment under the auspices of the United Nations. Countries such as the United States of America, Britain, France and Germany witnessed the agreement signing ceremony.

Obasanjo assured the Bakassi people that their interests had been protected. He said though they would miss their ancestral homes, a better arrangement awaited them.

But nothing happened till he left power. Indeed, the people were disenchanted with the approach of Obasanjo’s government to the issue. They complained bitterly at every opportune time.

Then, a fresh tension broke out in the area. First, it started with the allegation by Camerounian authorities that gunmen in Nigeria’s military uniform had attacked the country’s military formations in the peninsula, killing over 20 and carting away guns and ammunitions. Even when Nigerian authorities absolved the country’s military of the said attack on Cameroun, there was a counter-offensive against Nigeria.

Shortly after, a shot came from the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Senate in a motion sponsored by Mr. Bassey Ewa-Henshaw (Cross River) and 21 others, said the “signing of the agreement and cession of the peninsula on June 12, 2006 to Cameroun was unilateral and against the provisions of Section 12 (1) of our Constitution. And that up till date, the so-called Green Tree Agreement was yet to be placed before the National Assembly for scrutiny as required by the Constitution.”

It noted the “great concern and disappointment the uncertain fate and neglect now faced by the people of Bakassi since their relocation from their ancestral homes in the peninsula to Ikang in Akpabuyo Local Government Area of Cross River State.”

Ewa-Henshaw, representing Cross River South Senatorial District, which includes Bakassi, regretted that no budgetary provision was made for the compensation and resettlement of the displaced Nigerians from Bakassi by the Federal Government.

Former Chairman of Bakassi Local Government Area, Mr. Ani Esin, confirmed the level of tension in the area.

Esin said, “Our people are angry – particularly with those of us that had been in government or are in government, because they still cannot understand what has befallen them with the way they are being treated.”

The level of tension in the area reportedly rises on a daily basis as the frustration of the people mounts. Another source that craved anonymity said, “It is difficult for those in government to get to Abana. You may just get attacked in the mid sea or by the shores.”

It was gathered from the people that they suspect the involvement of most of their senior political leaders in the negotiation that led to the final handing over of their land of birth to a foreign country. Some said as a result, some senior political leaders of the state are owners of oil drilling blocks.

They accused Duke and the National Assembly Presidential Liaison Officer, Senator Florence Ita-Giwa, of not doing enough to ward off the move to cede their land to Cameroun.

The source said, “Obasanjo who traded our future is not from this area. So, it is easy for him not to defend us. But our leaders should have told him no and if he refused, they should have ensured the alternative was on ground before any further action.”

The Green Tree Agreement, which sought to draw up modalities for implementing the ICJ judgment, was handled with some sort of secrecy and hastiness, they reasoned. While the Senate of Nigeria claimed the document was not represented before them as constitutionally required, the Bakassi people have never set their eyes on the document. Obasanjo claimed otherwise. He said he sent it to the Senate.

In August 2006, Obasanjo ordered the Nigerian Army to withdraw all military formations from Bakassi Peninsula and the Nigerian flag was symbolically lowered in the same month in one of the islands of Bakassi. In its place, the Camerounian flag was hoisted.

When the South-south Parliamentary Caucus in the Senate, as presently constituted, visited the new area for Bakassi people in Ikang South, Central and North, in Akpabuyo Local Government Area of the state, new chapters in the plights of Bakassi people were revealed.

Bakassi Local Government Area was carved out of Akpabuyo Local Government Area. But in returning the people back to their kith and kin in Akpabuyo, the Bakassi people said their identity must be maintained.

Ita-Giwa, who is seen by the people as their political leader, explained that the issue of identity was important to her people. She said, “They need a virgin area, which government should purchase and partition into the 10 different wards as was constituted in the handed over territory.

“It is not about taking us somewhere already inhabited. This creates confusion whereby the identity of Bakassi people is subsumed, if not annihilated.”

While the people of Ikang in Akpabuyo welcome the Bakassi people with high hopes of good tidings coming their way and their political leaders already repositioning themselves, the Bakassi people remain apprehensive and concerned that they may never get what is due to them.

Through a court injunction at the Federal High Court in Calabar, the Bakassi people succeeded in stopping the holding of the local government election in the new area, last month. The election was scheduled for November 3. They hold in memory the intrigues where a state law was passed in the state House of Assembly in the twilight of the immediate past administration in the state.

On the strength of that law, the Deputy Speaker of the Assembly, who was at the time representing Akpabuyo state constituency, jettisoned the constituency, moving over to Bakassi people in the present assembly. This was because Ekpiri Ikang, where Bakassi people are said to be relocated to by the said law, is where he hails from, since he could not go back to the house under the former constituency representation.

In a recent position paper issued by Bakassi Elders Forum with Honourable Patrick Antigha-Ene as the leader, they supported the recent move by the Senate to revisit their plight and demanded, amongst other things, that they be given a virgin area for relocation and resettlement without further delay.

Also, that the state electoral commission should go ahead and conduct elections for Bakassi council area with headquarters in Abana, Cross River State. Another demand was that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) should as a matter of expedience conduct election into the seat for Bakassi State Constituency in the state House of Assembly.

They rejected the state Law N0 7, 2007 and invariably rejected the present occupier of that seat in the person of Hon. Dominic Edem, who is the deputy speaker of the Assembly.

The Bakassi people said, “It is both obnoxious and disheartening to see that the indigenes of Ikang Towns in Akpabuyo are the ones now championing the relocation/resettlement of Bakassi to their land to the detriment of the affected population.”

On the issue of identity, they maintained, “Traditionally, Bakassi Local Government Area is made up of about 323 villages, eight clans with their heads at the villages, clans levels and a paramount ruler.

“Each of the villages and clans also have several deities and customs that are peculiar to them. Bakassi is also well constituted politically with ten (10) wards – Abana, Akpankanya, Atai-Ema, Ekpot Abia, Odiong, Archibong, Akwa, Amoto, Efut Inwang and Ambai Ekpa and a State Constituency.

For any African, these are the things that confer identity. The constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the African and the United Nations Charters on Human Rights all recognise our inalienable rights to identity and human dignity.”

They continued, “Even if it were to be the desire of the Federal Government to relocate and resettle the people of Bakassi to the three Ikang wards of Akpabuyo, the proper sequence of things should have been:
•Acquisition of the three Ikang Town from Akpabuyo Local Government legally through payment of compensation or any other legal means.
•Demarcation of the inhabited areas of land within the three Ikang towns and adequate compensation paid to the traditional landlords and
•Partitioning and substitution of the already acquired areas and building up of the acquired areas in preparation for the proper relocation/resettlement of the affected populations.”

They prayed that the Senate should passionately look into the issue raised in their memo. They gave an alternative though, “If it is not tenable, we suggest that the affected people of Bakassi be relocated and resettled to a neutral location called Nsutana Iyata. The land is owned by kith and kin of Duke Town House. It is contiguous to the Atlantic Ocean, sparsely inhabited and the terrain akin to our traditional homeland.

“The land acquisition is essential to forestall the seeming political, economic and social skirmishes like the Ife/Modakeke, Itsekiri/Warri, Biakpan/Etono I & II and so on. The National Assembly should also enact an enabling legislation so as to guarantee gradual and peaceful relocation/resettlement process that would ensure the sustenance of the original political and traditional structures of the Bakassi people as promised by the former President of Nigeria on August 21, 2006 in Calabar during the final parade commemorating the withdrawal of the military troops from Bakassi.”

When contacted on phone, the paramount ruler of Bakassi, His Royal Highness, Eteyin Etim Okon Edet, said he was answering from London and would return only by the third week of December. However, during the visit of the Senate parliamentary caucus, the paramount ruler took a stand different from what most of his people were asking for. He said the state Law N0.7 on the new Bakassi should remain and they would go to no other place. He said his people would then remain in the Ikang town areas in Akpabuyo as recognised by the state law.

According to the position paper from the people of Ikang Joint Assembly, they argued, “the subsisting State Law on the structure of the local government area be strictly implemented and respected by all the stakeholders. The people of Ikang must as a matter of government policy at all times form part of any issues and development of the local government area on equal basis with their counterparts from the former Bakassi. And that government should appoint a technical committee to address the issues that have so far emerged as a result of the location of the new local government area in Ikang.”

They Ikang people stressed that they had always supported government efforts in relocating their displaced brothers from the old Bakassi and would always encourage efforts that could bring about peaceful coexistence and proper integration. But this, they said, would not be done at the expense of their existence as a people.

The argument for a virgin land in Iyata where the identity of the Bakassi people would be better maintained may seem compelling, but the Cross River State Government, just like the people of Ikang, had taken a stand to stand by the law.

The Rivers State Governor, Mr. Liyel Imoke, said there was nothing the state government could do but stand by the law, which is Law N0.7 2007, recognising the three Ikang towns and the new area for the Bakassi people. Imoke argued that the government did not arrive at the decision to situate the new Bakassi in Ikang unilaterally but got stakeholders to participate. He said his concern now was that of putting infrastructures in place for the relocation, adding, “By August next year, we expect that infrastructures would be in place and proper relocation would have taken place.”

Apart from the N1 billion released by Obasanjo to Duke over which the people had complained that the pace of work vis-à-vis the money released was slow, Imoke has budgeted N1.5 billion in the state 2008 budget for the relocation of the Bakassi people. Nothing has been heard yet concerning the relocation of the people in the Federal Government’s budget for 2008.

Analysts are of the opinion that prompt and proper relocation remained the best option for the people. They said relocation was one thing and resettlement different and should be seen as such.

The move in the Senate, according to a veteran journalist and a kingmaker in the palace of the Obong of Calabar, Etubom Bassey Ekpo Bassey IV, would rather cause tension in Bakassi Local Government Area of Cross River State and instigate war in the area following the decision that opted to jettison the Green Tree Agreement entered into by Obasanjo on behalf of Nigeria. Etubom Bassey IV, whose area of traditional authority extends to a community in Bakassi (now under Camerounian sovereignty going by the world Court Judgment), in a statement circulated to journalists in Calabar, warned that going back on the implementation of the ICJ judgment of 2002 and last year’s Green Tree Agreement could only result in war.

He said, “Those who are instigating war with Cameroun, either by inspiring cross-border murders, or by causing the Senate to create problems, must be told that even as they position themselves to be defence contractors, our border communities will resist the dastardly consequences of their actions.” The traditional father and radical politician dismissed the Senate position as irresponsible and argued that such decisions by the Nigerian political leadership produced the 1967 to 1970 Civil War “at the end of which, two million Nigerians (mostly easterners) lay dead.”

A Calabar resident said, “To avoid war in Bakassi the proper thing should be done and it’s easy to do it. Simply relocate and resettle the people in clear honesty and sincerity.”

The reality in the disputed and judgment area of Bakassi is that the fish farmers are still in the area with no alternative place of abode. They still claim to be Nigerians, which they are, but daily suffer harassment from Camerounian gendarmes in the high seas when they go fish farming. Under the Green Tree Agreement, the area where the Bakassi fish farmers are still residing ought to be under joint administration between Nigeria and Cameroun governments. Though most of them would not mind relocation, they could only do that if an alternative area was provided and built for them.