The Senators said the approval of the National Assembly was not sought and received before the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo ceded the oil – rich peninsula based on the judgment of the International Court of Justice.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Information, Eyinnaya Abaribe, in an interview with one of our correspondents in Abuja at the weekend, said the Bakassi issue was not closed.
Abaribe said, “We have decided to revisit the issue of Bakassi, and will do so sometimes next (this) week.
“I do not know in what form it is going to come; the Rules and Business Committee will decide that.”
Also, the Senate Leader, Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba, said the Green Tree Agreement, which was signed by Nigeria and Cameroon had not been ratified by the National Assembly. He argued that the failure to seek the approval of the National Assembly rendered the agreement incomplete.
The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Mohammed Adoke, had in a recent interview with a national newspaper said the Federal Government would not appeal the October 2002 ICJ judgment because there was no higher court in the international judicial system than the ICJ.
He had said, “Go and check Article 60 and 61 of the ICJ rules; there is no room for appeal. What Nigeria can do, if at all we want to act, is to call for a review of the case.
“But from what most people are putting forward as reasons for us to go back to the ICJ, they are not tenable. We would only go there to embarrass ourselves.”
His information counterpart, Mr. Labaran Maku, had also said that the Federal Government had taken a final position not to seek a review of the judgment.
“Nigeria does not have a new position.Nigeria’s position is in conformity with the judgment of the International Court of Justice,” Maku said
However, Ndoma-Egba said, “What was forwarded to the 6th Senate was the Green Tree Agreement for ratification.
“To the best of my knowledge, that agreement has not been ratified till date.
“As far as the 1999 Constitution is concerned, the treaty is an incomplete Act that is as far as the ratification aspect is concerned.
“But generally, I think that the Federal Government should revisit the issue of Bakassi.
“You know, if government acquires somebody’s coco yam or cassava farm government pays compensation.
“Government cannot just cede an entire territory, not just territory, a place that represents an entire way of life, a people’s history, a people’s heritage and not think of compensation.
“There must be compensation from the Federal Government for the original owners of Bakassi in perpetuity.”
He also said the government should address the loss of revenue by Cross River State as a result of the ceding of Bakassi.
Ndoma-Egba, who is also a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, said, “Cross River State should suffer no adversity as a result of the loss, rather it should be compensated for the loss. And then there are the humanitarian issues.
“This is not the first time under international law that people are being relocated and from time immemorial, relocations have come with humanitarian issues. The way we have attended to the humanitarian issues is as if it was not anticipated, they ought to have been anticipated.”
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Business, Ita Enang, said indications from senators were that the issue should be revisited.
“So in that case, the matter will be revisited soon,” he told one of our correspondents in Abuja.
The House of Representatives said that it would take a final stance on the Bakassi Peninsula after the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs/Justice submitted the report of its findings .
The House had in July passed a resolution, advising the Federal Government to seek a review of the ICJ judgment.
The resolution followed agitation by the people of Bakassi, who argued that fresh facts had emerged to fault the judgment of the ICJ.
The House later referred the matter to the joint committee for further investigations.
The Chairman, House Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Mr. Zakari Mohammed, in an interview with one of our correspondents, said that the House would await the findings of the committee before taking a final position.
“Our committee is still investigating the Bakassi issue. It was earlier raised on the floor and referred to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs/Justice.
“We are waiting for the committee to submit its report before we can take a final position”, he added.
When contacted, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Olugbenga Ashiru, said he supported the AGF’s view on the matter.
He said, “All I can say about Bakassi is that, we support the views expressed by the Attorney-General of the Federation.”
Obasanjo and ex-President of the Senate, Chief Ken Nnamani, had disagreed over how Bakassi Peninsula was ceded to Cameroon.
While Obasanjo claimed that he wrote to the National Assembly to seek a ratification of the agreement on the Peninsula, Nnamani said his request was not granted.
The Senate had in November 2007 rejected the transfer of Bakassi on the grounds that due process was not followed by the Obasanjo administration.
It said Obasanjo acted unilaterally and contrary to Section 12 of the 1999 constitution.
The section reads, “No treaty between the Federation and other country shall have the force of law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly.”
The Senate action then received the backing of many prominent Nigerians, including a former Attorney-General of the Federation, and Minister of Justice, Chief Richard Akinjide (SAN).
But Obasanjo, in a statement by his Media Assistant, Mr. Adeoba Ojekunle, had defended the transfer of Bakassi.
He said that contrary to the belief that he acted unilaterally, he duly served the National Assembly with relevant documents on Bakassi.
But Nnamani said Obasanjo should have made public what the response of the Senate was, if indeed such a thing had happened.
Nnamani, who spoke with one of our correspondents on the telephone, said the former President did not follow due process.
He said, “If he sent it (letter) to us like he said, what action did we take? What was our response? If he gave you the letter he said he wrote to the Senate, did he also attach our response, if any?
“What action did we take to make it conclusive? The question remains: Was the treaty ever ratified by the National Assembly?
“It is a major thing if it was not ratified. It is not binding on us. Let me tell you how he (Obasanjo) did things in office. Normally, what he does is, he calls the leadership of the National Assembly and tells us what he has done or a decision he had taken verbally.
“If he came to us with a letter on the agreement, we would have first read it on the floor of the Senate and the next day, refer it to the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs.”
No comments:
Post a Comment