Audience publique tenue le jeudi 28 février 2002, à 10 heures, sous la présidence de M. Guillaume, président

Non-Corrige

Uncorrected

Courinternationale InternationalCourt
de Justice
of Justice

LA HAYE THE HAGUE

Audiencepublique

tenuelejeudi 28vrier 200à10heures, auPalaisdelaPaix,

sous laprésidende M. Guillaume,président,

en l'affairedelaFrontière terrestreet maritimeentre leCamerounetleNigéria
(Cameroun c.Nigéria;Guinéeéquatoriale(intervenuni))

COMPTE RENDU

YEAR2002

Publicsitting

heldon Thursday28 February2002,at10a.m, atthe PeacePalace,

PresidentGuillaumepresiding,

in the caseconcerningtheLand andMaritimendary betweenCameroonandNigeria

(Cameroonv.Nigeria: EquatorialGuineaintervening)

VERJ3ATIM RECORDPrésent: M. Guillaume,président
M. Shi,vice-président
MM. Ranjeva
Herczegh
Fleischhauer

Koroma
Mme Higgins
MM. Parra-Aranguren
Kooijmans
Rezek
Al-Khasawneh
Buergenthal

Elaraby,juges
MM. Mbaye
Ajibola,jugad hoc

M. Couvreur,greffierPresent: President Guillaume
Vice-President Shi
Judges Ranjeva
Herczegh
Fleischhauer

Koroma
Higgins
Parra-Aranguren
Kooijmans
Rezek
Al-Khasawneh
Buergenthal

Elaraby
Judgesad hoc Mbaye
Ajibola

Registrar CouvreurLe GouvernementdelaRépublique du Camerounestreprésentp éar :

S.Exc.M. AmadouAli, ministred7Etatchargéde lajustice,garde dessceaux,

comme agent;
,
M. MauriceKarnto, doyen de la facultédes sciencesjuridiques et politiques de l'universitéde
YaoundéII, membrede la Commissiondudroit international,avocatau barreaude Paris,

M. PeterY. Ntamark, professeurà la facultédessciencesjuridiques etpolitiquesde l'universitéde
YaoundéII, Barrister-ut-Law,membrede 1'InnerTemple,ancien doyen,

commecoagents,conseilsetavocats;

M. AlainPellet, professeurà l'universitéde ParisX-Nanterre, membre et ancien présidentde la
Commission du droit international,

commeagent adjoint, conseilet avocat;

M.Joseph Marie Bipoun Wourn, professeur à la facultédes sciencesjuridiques et politiques de

l'universitéde YaoundéII, ancienministre,anciendoyen,

commeconseillerspécialetavocat;

M.Michel Aurillac, ancien ministre, conseillerd'Etathonoraire,avocaten retraite,

M.Jean-PierreCot, professeuràl'universitédeParis 1(Panthéon-Sorbonne)a ,ncienministre,

M.Maurice Mendelson, Q. C., professeuréméritee l'universitédeLondres,Barrister-ut-Law,

M.MalcolmN. Shaw, professeur à la facultéde droit de l'universitéde Leicester,titulaire de la

chairesir RobertJennings,Barrister-ut-Law,

M.Bruno Simma, professeur à l'université de Munich, membre de la Commission du droit
international,

M. ChristianTomuschat, professeur à l'universitéHumbold de Berlin, ancien membre et ancien

présidentde la Commissiondudroit international,

M. OlivierCorten,professeur àlaFacultédedroitde l'universitélibrede Bruxelles,

M.DanielKhan, chargéde cours àl'Institutdedroit internationaldel'universitédeMunich,

M.Jean-Marc Thouvenin, professeur à l'universitéde Paris X-Nanterre, avocat au barreau de ,
Paris, sociétd'avocats Lysias,

commeconseilset avocats;TheGovernmentofthe Republicof Cameroonis representedby:

H.E.Mr.AmadouAli,MinisterofStateresponsibleforJustice,Keeperof the Seals,

asAgent;

Mr. Maurice Karnto, Dean, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of YaoundéII,
memberof the InternationalLawCommission,AvocatattheParisBar, LysiasLawAssociates,

Mr. PeterY. NtamarkP , rofessor, Facultyof Law and Political Science, Univerof Yaoundé II,
Barrister-at-Law,memberofthe InnerTemple, formerDean,

as Co-Agents,CounselandAdvocates;

Mr. AlainPellet, Professor,Universityof ParisX-Nanterre, memberand formerChairmanof the
InternationalLawCommission,

asDeputyAgent, CounselandAdvocate;

Mr. Joseph-MarieBipoun Woum,Professor,Faculty of Law andPolitical Science,Universityof
YaoundéII, formerMinister,formerDean,

asSpecialAdviserandAdvocate;

Mr.Michel Aurillac,formerMinister,HonoraryConseillerd'État,retiredAvocat,

Mr. Jean-PierreCot,Professor,UniversityofParis 1(Panthéon-Sorbonne) f,ormerMinister,

Mr.Maurice Mendelson,Q.C., EmeritusProfessor University ofLondon,Barrister-at-Law,

Mr. Malcolm N. Shaw,Sir Robert Jennings Professor ofInternational Law, Faculty of Law,
UniversityofLeicester,Barrister-at-Law,

Mr. Bruno Simma, Professor, University of Munich, member of the International Law
Commission,

Mr. Christian Tomuschat, Professor, Humboldt University of Berlin, former member and
Chairman,InternationalLawCommission,

Mr. OlivierCorten,Professor,FacultyofLaw,Université libredeBruxelles,

Mr. DanielKhan,Lecturer,InternationalLawInstitute,UniversityofMunich,

Mr. Jean-Marc Thouvenin,Professor,University of Paris X-Nanterre,Avocat at the Paris Bar,
LysiasLawAssociates,

as CounselandAdvocates;Sir Ian Sinclair,K.C.M.G., Q.C., arrister-at-Law, ancienmembre de la Commission dudroit
international,

M. EricDiamantis, avocatau barreaudeParis,Moquet,Bordes& Associés,

M. Jean-PierreMignard,avocataubarreaudeParis, sociétéd'avocatsLysias,

M. JosephTjop, consultantàla société d'avocatsysias,chercheurauCentrede droit international
deNanterre (CEDIN), UniversitéParisX-Nanterre,

commeconseils;

M. PierreSemengue,générad l'armée,contrôleurgénéradlesarmées,ancien chef d'état-major des
armées,

M. JamesTataw, générad le division,conseillerlogistique,ancienchefd'état-majorde l'armée de
terre,

S. Exc.MmeIsabelleBassong, ambassadeurdu Cameroun auprès des pays duBenelux et de
l'Unioneuropéenne,

S. Exc.M.BiloaTang,ambassadeurdu Camerounen France,

S. Exc.M.MartinBelinga Eboutou,ambassadeur, représentant permanen dtu Cameroun auprès de

l'organisationdesNationsUniesàNew York,

M. EtienneAteba, ministre-conseiller, chargé d'affaires a.ià l'ambassade du Cameroun,
à LaHaye,

M. RobertAkamba, administrateur civil principal, charée mission au secrétariatgénérle la

présidencede la République,

M. Anicet AbandaAtangana, attaché ausecrétariatgénérad le la présidencede la République,
chargé decours àl'universitédeYaoundéII,

M. EmestBodoAbanda,directeurducadastre,membredelacommissionnationaledes frontières,

M. OusmaneMey,anciengouverneurdeprovince,

Le chef SamuelMokaLiffafa Endeley,magistrat honoraire,Barrister-at-Law,membredu Middle
Temple(Londres),ancienprésidentde lachambreadministrativedelaCour suprême,

MeMarcSassen,avocatet conseiljuridique,sociétéPetten,Tideman& Sassen(LaHaye),

M. FrancisFai Yengo, ancien gouverneurde province, directeur de l'organisation du territoire,
ministèrede l'administration territoriale,

M. Jean Mbenoun,directeurde l'administrationcentraleausecrétariat générale laprésidencede
la République,Sir Ian Sinclair, K.C.M.G., Q.C.,Barrister-at-Law,former member of the International Law
Commission,

Mr.Eric Diamantis,Avocat atthe ParisBar,Moquet,Bordes & Associés,

Mr.Jean-PierreMignard,AvocatattheParisBar, LysiasLaw Associates,

Mr. Joseph Tjop, Consultant to Lysias Law Associates, Researcher at the Centre de droit
internationaldeNanterre(CEDIN),UniversityofParis X-Nanterre,

as Counsel;

GeneralPierre Semengue,Controller-Generalof the Armed Forces, formerHead of Staff of the
ArmedForces,

Major-GeneralJames Tataw, LogisticsAdviser,FormerHead ofStaffoftheArmy,

H.E.Ms IsabelleBassong,AmbassadorofCameroonto theBeneluxCountriesand to theEuropean

Union,

H.E.Mr.Biloa Tang, Ambassadorof Cameroonto France,

H.E. Mr. Martin Belinga Eboutou,Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Cameroonto the
UnitedNationsinNew York,

Mr. Etienne Ateba, Minister-Counsellor,Chargé d'affairesa.i. at the Embassy of Cameroon,
The Hague,

Mr. RobertAkarnba,PrincipalCivil Administrator, Chargéde mission,General Secretariatof the
Presidency oftheRepublic,

Mr.Anicet AbandaAtangana, Attaché tothe General Secretariatofthe Presidency oftheRepublic,
Lecturer, Universityof YaoundII,

Mr. Emest Bodo Abanda, Director of the Cadastral Survey, member, National Boundary
Commission,

Mr.OusmaneMey,formerProvincialGovemor,

Chief Samuel Moka Liffafa Endeley,Honorary Magistrate, Barrister-at-Law,member of the
Middle Temple (London),former President of the AdministrativeChamber of the Supreme
Court,

MaîtreMarc Sassen,AdvocateandLegalAdviser,Petten,Tideman & Sassen(TheHague),

Mr.FrancisFaiYengo,formerProvincialGovemor,Director,Organisationdu Territoire,Ministry
ofTemtorialAdministration,

Mr. JeanMbenoun, Director, Central Administration, GenerSlecretariatof the Presidencyof the

Republic,M. Edouard Etoundi, directeur de l'administration centrale ausecrétariatgénéle la présidence
de laRépublique,

M. RobertTanda,diplomate,ministèredesrelationsextérieures

commeconseillers;

M. SamuelBetah Sona, ingénieur-géologue e,xpert consultantde l'Organisation des Nations Unies
pour ledroit de lamer,

M. Thomson Fitt Takang, chef de service d'administration centraleau secrétariat général de la
présidencede laRépublique,

M. Jean-JacquesKoum, directeurde l'exploration, sociéténationadles hydrocarbures(SNH),

M. Jean-Pierre Meloupou, capitaine de frégate, chefde la division Afrique au ministère de la
défense,

M. PaulMoby Etia,géographe,directeurdel'Institutnationalde cartographie,

M. AndréLoudet,ingénieurcartographe,

M. AndréRoubertou,ingénieurgénérad lel'armement, hydrographe,

commeexperts;

MmeMarieFlorenceKollo-Efon,traducteurinterprèteprincipal,

commetraducteurinterprète;

Mlle CélineNegre,chercheur auCentre de droit internationalde Nanterre (CEDIN),Universitéde
ParisX-Nanterre

Mlle SandrineBarbier, chercheurau Centre dedroit internationaldeNanterre (CEDIN), Université

de ParisX-Nanterre,

M. Richard Penda Keba, professeur certifiéd'histoire, cabinet du ministre de la justice, ancien
proviseurde lycées,

commeassistantsde recherche;

M. GuyRoger Eba'a,

M. Aristide Esso,

M. NkendeForbinake,

M. NfanBile,Mr. EdouardEtoundi, Director, CentralAdministration,General Secretariat ofthe Presidencyof
the Republic,

Mr. RobertTanda,diplomat,Ministryof ForeignAffairs,

asAdvisers;

Mr. SamuelBetah Sona,Geological Engineer, ConsultingExpertto the UnitedNationsfortheLaw
ofthe Sea,

Mr. ThomsonFitt Takang,DepartmentHead, CentralAdministration,General Secretariat of the
Presidencyof the Republic,

Mr. Jean-JacquesKourn, DirectorofExploration,NationalHydrocarbons Company(SNH),

CommanderJean-Pierre MeloupouH , eadofAfricaDivisionattheMinistryof Defence,

Mr. PaulMoby Etia, Geographer,DirectorI,nstitutnationalde cartographie,

Mr. André Loudet,CartographieEngineer,

Mr.AndréRoubertou,MarineEngineer,Hydrographer,

asExperts;

MsMarieFlorenceKollo-Efon, Principal Translator-Interpreter,

as Translator-Interpreter;

Ms CélineNegre, Researcher, Centre d'étudesde droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN),
Universityof ParisX-Nanterre,

Ms SandrineBarbier, Researcher,Centre d'études de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN),
Universityof ParisX-Nanterre,

Mr. Richard Penda Keba, Certified Professor of History c,abinet of the Minister of State for
Justice,formerHeadof HighSchool,

asResearchAssistants;

Mr.BoukarOumara,

Mr. GuyRoger Eba'a,

Mr. AristideEsso,

Mr.NkendeForbinake,

Mr.NfanBile,M. EithelMbocka,

M. OlingaNyozo'o,

commeresponsablesdela communication;

Mme RenéeBakker,

MmeLawrencePolirsztok,

MmeMireilleJung,

Mme TeteBéatriceEpeti-Kame,

commesecrétairesde la délégation.

Le GouvernementdelaRépubliquefédérale d Nuigériaestreprésentépar :

S. Exc. l'honorableMusaE. Abdullahi, ministred'Etat, ministre de la Justice du Gouvernement
fédéradluNigéria,

commeagent;

Le chefRichard AkinjideSAN, ancien Attorney-Generalde la Fédération, membre du barreau
d'Angleterre, ancien membrede la Commissiondu droitinternational,

M. Alhaji Abdullahi IbrahimSAN, CON, commissaire pour les frontières internationales,
commissionnationaledes frontièresduNigéria,ancienAttorney-Generaldela Fédération,

commecoagents;

MmeNellaAndem-Ewa,Attorney-Generalet commissaire àlajustice, Etat de Cross River,

M. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., membre de la Commission du droit international, membre du
barreaud'Angleterre,membrede l'Institut dedroitinternational,

SirArthurWatts, K.C.M.G., Q.C.,membredu barreau d'Angleterre, membre de l'Institutde droit
international,

M. James Crawford,S.C.,professeurde droitinternationaà l'université deCambridge, titulairede
la chaireWhewell, membre des barreauxd'Angleterreet d'Australie, membrede l'Institutde
droitinternational,

M. GeorgesAbi-Saab, professeur honoraire à l'Institut universitaire de hautes études
internationalesde Genève, membredel'Institutdedroitinternational,

M. Alastair Macdonald, géomètre, ancien directeurI'OrdnanceSuwey,Grande-Bretagne,

commeconseils et avocats,

M. Timothy H.Daniel,associé, cabinet . J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityde Londres,Mr.EithelMbocka

Mr.Olinga Nyozo'o,

as MediaOfleers;

MsRenéBakker,

MsLawrencePolirsztok,

MsMireilleJung,

Mr.Nigel McCollum,

MsTeteBéatrice Epeti-Kame,

as Secretaries.

TheGovernmentof theFederalRepublicofNigeriaisrepresented by:

H.E.the HonourableMusaE.Abdullahi, Minister ofStateforJusticeof theFederal Governmentof
Nigeria,

asAgent;

Chief RichardAkinjideSAN,Former Attorney-General of the FederatioM, ember ofthe English
Bar, formerMemberoftheInternationalLawCommission,

AlhajiAbdullahiIbrahimSAN,CON,Commissioner,InternationalBoundaries,NationalBoundary
CommissionofNigeria,FormerAttorney-GeneraloftheFederation,

as Co-Agents;

Mrs.Nella Andem-Ewa, Attorney-GeneraalndCornrnissionerforJustice,Cross RiverState,

Mr. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E.,Q.C., Memberof the International LawCommission,Memberof the
EnglishBar,Memberof the InstituteofInternational Law,

Sir ArthurWatts, K.C.M.G.,Q.C., Member of the English Bar, Memberof the Institute of
International Law,

Mr. James Crawford, S.C., Whewell Professorof International Law,University of Cambridge,
MemberoftheEnglishandAustralianBars,Member of theInstituteofInternationalLaw,

Mr.Georges Abi-Saab,HonoraryProfessor,GraduateInstituteof International Studies,Geneva,
MemberoftheInstituteof InternationalLaw,

Mr.AlastairMacdonald,LandSurveyor,FormerDirector, OrdnanceSurvey,Great Britain,

as CounselandAdvocates;

Mr.TimothyH.Daniel,Partner,D. J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityof London,M. AlanPerry,associé, cabinet . J. Freeman,Solicitors,City deLondres,

M.DavidLerer,solicitor,cabinetD.J.Freeman,Solicitors,CitydeLondres,

M. ChristopherHackford,solicitor,cabinD. J. Freeman,Solicitors,City deLondres,

MmeCharlotteBreide,solicitor,cabinetD.J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityde Londres,

M.NedBeale, stagiaire, cabinetD. J. Freeman,Solicitors,CitydeLondres,

M. GeoffieyMarston, directeurdu départementdes étudesjuridiques au SidneySussexCollege,
Universitéde Cambridge,membredubarreau d'Angleterre etduPaysde Galles,

commeconseils;

S. Exc.l'honorableDubemOnyia,ministred'Etat,ministredesaffairesétrangères,

M. MaxwellGidado, assistant spécial principaldu présidentpour les affaires juridiques et
constitutionnelles,ancienAttorney-Generalet commissàilaJustice,Etatd'Adamaoua,

M. AlhajiDahiruBobbo,directeurgénéral, commissio nationaledesfrontières,

M. A.O.Cukwurah,coconseil,

M. 1.Ayua,membrede l'équipe juridiquedu Nigéria,

M.F. A.Kassim, directeurgénéradlu servicecartographiquede laFédération,

M.AlhajiS. M.Diggi,directeurdes frontières internationales, commissionnatilesfrontières,

M.K. A.Adabale,directeur pourle droit internationaletle droitco, inistèrede lajustice,

M.A. B.Maitama,colonel,ministèredela défense,

M.JalalArabi,membredel'équipe juridique du Nigéria,

M. GbolaAkinola, membre de l'équipjeridique duNigéra,

M. K.M. Tumsah,assistant spécialdu directeurgénérle la commission nationaledes frontières
etsecrétairedel'équipejuridique,

M.AliyiuNasir,assistant spéciluministred'Etat,ministredelaJustice,

commeconseillers;

M. ChrisCarleton,C.B.E.,bureau hydrographiqueduRoyaume-Uni,

M.DickGent,bureauhydrographiqueduRoyaume-Uni,

M. CliveSchofield, unité recherchesurles frontièresinternationales, Univée Durham,

M. ScottB. Edmonds,directeurdes opérations cartographiqus,ternational MappingAssociates,

M.Robert C.Rizzutti,cartographeprincipal,InternationalMappingAssociates,Mr.AlanPeny, Partner, D.J.Freeman,Solicitors,Ciîyof London,

Mr.DavidLerer,Solicitor,D.J. Freeman,Solicitors,City ofLondon,

Mr.ChristopherHackford, Solicito, .J.Freeman,Solicitors,Cityof London,

MsCharlotteBreide, Solicito, .J. Freeman,Solicitors,CityofLondon,

Mr.NedBeale,Trainee,D.J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityof London,

Dr.GeoffreyMarston, Fellow of SidneySussexCollege,Universityof Cambridge; Memberof the
Barof Englandand Wales,

as Counsel;

H.E.the HonourableDubemOnyia, Minister ofStateforForeignAffairs,

Mr. MaxwellGidado, Senior Special AssistantthePresident(Legal andConstitutionalMatters),
FormerAttorney-General andComrnissionerforJustice,Adamawa State,

AlhajiDahiruBobbo,Director-General,NationalBoundaryCommission,

Mr.A.O. Cuicwurah,Co-Counsel,

Mr. 1Ayua,Member,NigerianLegalTeam,

Mr.F.A.Kassim,Sweyor-General ofthe Federation,

AlhajiS.M. Diggi,Director(InternationalBoundaries),Nationl oundaryCommission,

Mr. K.A. Adabale,Director(Internationaland ComparativeLaw)MinistryofJustice,

ColonelA. B.Maitama,Ministry of Defence,

Mr.JalalArabi, Member, NigerianLegalTeam,

Mr. GbolaAkinola,Member,Nigerian LegalTeam,

Mr. K. M. Tumsah, Special Assistantto Director-General,National Boundary Commissionand
Secretaryto the LegalTeam,

Mr.AliyuNasir,SpecialAssistanttothe MinisterofStateforJustice,

asAdvisers;

Mr.ChrisCarleton,C.B.E.,UnitedKingdomHydrographicOffice,

Mr.DickGent, UnitedKingdomHydrographicOffice,

Mr.CliveSchofield, InternationalBoundaris esearchUnit,UniversityofDurham,

Mr.ScottB. Edmonds,DirectorofCartographieOperations,InternationalMappingAssociates,

Mr.RobertC.Rizzutti,SeniorMappingSpecialist,InternationaMl appingAssociates,M. BruceDaniel,International MappingAssociates,

Mme VictoriaJ. Taylor,InternationalMappingAssociates,

MmeStephanieKimClark,InternationalMappingAssociates,

M. RobinCleverly,ExplorationManager,NPAGroup,

MmeClaireAinsworth,NPAGroup,

commeconseillersscientiJquesettechniques;

M. MohammedJibrilla,expert eninformatique,commissionnationaledes frontières,

Mme CoralieAyad,secrétairec ,abinetD. J.Freeman,Solicitors,Cityde Londres,

MmeClaireGoodacre, secrétairec,abinet D.J. Freeman,Solicitors,City deLondres,

MmeSarah Bickell, secrétaire c,abinetD.J.Freeman,Solicitors,Cityde Londres,

MmeMichelleBurgoine, spécialisteen technologie de l'information, cabinet D. J.Freeman,
Solicitors,Cityde Londres,

commepersonnel administratij

Le Gouvernementde la Républiquede Guinée équatorialeq ,ui est autoriséà intervenir dans
l'instance, estreprésenpar :

S. Exc. M. RicardoMangueObamaN7Fube,ministre dYEtat,ministre du travailet de la sécurité
sociale,

comme agentet conseil;

S. Exc.M. RubénMayeNsueMangue, ministre de la justice et des cultes, vice-présidentde la
commissionnationaledesfrontières,

S. Exc. M.Cnstobal MafianaElaNchama,ministredesmines et de l'énergie,vice-présidentde la
commissionnationaledesfrontières,

M.DomingoMbaEsono, directeur national de la société nationale de pétrole de
Guinéeéquatorialem, embrede la commission nationaledesfrontières,

M. AntonioNzarnbiNlonga,Attorney-General,

commeconseillers;

M. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, professeur de droit international public à l'université de Paris
(Panthéon-Assase )tà l'Institutuniversitaireeuropde Florence,

M.DavidA. Colson, membre du cabinet LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P.,
Washington,D.C., membredu barreau de 1'Etatde Californie et du barreau du districtde
Columbia,

commeconseilset avocats;Mr.Bruce Daniel, InternationalMappingAssociates,

MsVictoriaJ. Taylor, InternationalMappingAssociates,

Ms StephanieKim Clark,InternationalMappingAssociates,

Dr. RobinCleverly,ExplorationManager,NPAGroup,

Ms ClaireAinsworth,NPAGroup,

asScientificand TechnicalAdvisers;

Mr.Mohammed Jibrilla,ComputerExpert,National BoundaryCommission,

Ms CoralieAyad, Secretary, . J.Freeman, Solicitors,CityofLondon,

MsClaireGoodacre,Secretav, D.J.Freeman,Solicitors,Cityof London,

Ms SarahBickell, Secretary, . J.Freeman, Solicitors,CityofLondon,

MsMichelleBurgoine,ITSpecialist,D. J. Freeman,Solicitors,City ofLondon,

asAdministrators.

TheGovernmentof theRepublicofEquatorial Guinea,whichhas beenpermitted to intervenein
the case,is representedby:

H.E. Mr.RicardoMangueObamaNYFubeM , inisterof StateforLabor andSocialSecurity,

asAgentand Counsel;

H.E. Mr. Rubén MayeNsue Mangue, Ministerof Justice and Religion, Vice-Presidentof the
NationalBoundaryCommission,

H.E. Mr. Cristobal MailanaEla Nchama, Minister of Mines and Energy,Vice-Presidentof the
NationalBoundaryCommission,

Mr. Domingo Mba Esono, National Director of the Equatorial Guinea National Petroleum
Company,Memberof the National Boundary Commission,

Mr.Antonio NzambiNlonga,Attorney-General,

asAdvisers;

Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor of Public International Law at the University of Paris
(Panthéon-Assas)andatthe EuropeanUniversity Institutein Florence,

Mr. DavidA. Colson, LeBoeuf,Lamb,Greene & MacRae,L.L.P., Washington,D.C., memberof
the CaliforniaStateBarandDistrictof ColumbiaBar,

asCounselandAdvocates;SirDerekBowett,

commeconseilprincipal,

M.DerekC. Smith, membre du cabinet LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P.,
Washington,D.C., membre du barreau du district de Columbia et du barreau de1'Etat

deVirginie,

commeconseil;

Mme JannetteE.Hasan, membre du cabinet LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P.,
Washington,D.C., membredu barreau du district de Columbia et du barreau de 1'Etatde

Floride,

M.HervéBlatry,membreducabinetLeBoeuf,Lamb,Greene & MacRae,L.L.P.,Paris,avocatàla
Cour,membredu barreaude Paris,

commeexpertsjuridiques;

M.CoalterG.Lathrop,SovereignGeographicInc.,Chape1Hill,CarolineduNord,

M.AlexanderM.Tait,Equator Graphies,SilverSpring,Maryland,

commeexperts techniques.Su DerekBowett,

as SeniorCounsel;

Mr.DerekC.Smith,LeBoeuf,Lamb,Greene & MacRae,L.L.P.,Washington,D.C.,memberofthe

DistrictofColumbiaBarand VirginiaStateBar,

as Counsel;

Ms JannetteE. Hasan, LeBoeuf,Lamb,Greene & MacRae,L.L.P.,Washington,D.C.,memberof
theDistrict ofColumbiaBar andFloridaStateBar,

Mr.HervéBlatry, LeBoeuf,Lamb, Greene & MacRae,L.L.P.,Paris, Avocaà la Cour,memberof
theParisBar,

as LegalExperts;

Mr.CoalterG.Lathrop,SovereignGeographicInc.,Chape1Hill,NorthCarolina,

Mr.AlexanderM.Tait,Equator Graphics,SilverSpring,Maryland,

as TechnicalExperts. Le PRESIDENT :Veuillezvous asseoir. L'audienceest ouverte aux fins d'entendre,àpartir

d'aujourd'hui, la première série de plaidoiridese la République fédérale du Nigéria J. donne

immédiatementla parole à S. Exc. l'honorableMusa E. Abdullahi, ministred'Etat, Ministre de la

justice, agent duNigéria.Mr.Minister,youhave the floor.

Mr.ABDULLAHI:

1.Mr. President, distinguishedMembersof the Court,it is an honour and a privilegefor me

to addressyou in my capacity as the Agent of the Federal Republicof Nigeria. Before 1begin 1

shouldlike, on behalfof my Govemment,to thank boththe Court andour distinguished opponents

for your and their condolenceson the sad death of the late Chief Bola Ige, my predecessoras

Agent. Heis muchmoumedandsorelymissed.

2. Mr.President,we inNigeriahavealwaysbeenproud ofthe fact thatNigeria has accepted

the Court's jurisdiction forover 40 years.Nigeria has always had confidence in the Court. By

contrast, Cameroon deposited its acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction under Article 36,

paragraph2, of the Statute in March 1994,instituting these present proceedingsjust a few days

later. As the Court will recollect, Carneroonbegan this case in two stages: first an Application

relatingonlyto the Bakassi Peninsulaandthe maritime boundary betweenthe two States,and then,

three months later, by an Additional Application introducing avariety of miscellaneous further

groundsof complaint,as an afterthought. The effect hasbeen to presentthis Court with oneof the

largestcases ever tocome before it, coveringtitle to temtory, maritime delimitation,the complex

problems of a large inland lake, an 1,800-kmor 1,000-mile land boundary, questions of State

responsibility,andthe fateofwellover 200,000Nigerians.

3. Although Nigeriaregards Cameroon'slegal case as a weak one, Nigeria has nevertheless

alwaystreated this disputewith great seriousness.TheCourt shouldbe aware of howNigeriasees

this case. Although it concems a nurnberof other issues, in Nigeria it is known as the "Bakassi

Case". This reflectsthe importanceof Bakassi inthe minds of theNigerian people. The peninsula, a

a thriving well-populated part of Nigeria, is the main focus of this case. What Cameroon is

attempting todo isto prise awayparts ofNigeria andits people. The Bakassiissue, in particular,

has already causedwidespread anxietyanddisquietwithinNigeria. 4. AlthoughCameroonisnow claimingsovereigntyinBakassi,ithas neverhadtitle, andhas

never acted as if it had title.Nor has it ever taken any positive interest in the people; on the

contrary itshostilitytothemhas beenapparentformany years. Its conducthas beennot onlyalien,

but violent anddestructive,its pre-eminentcharacteristicbeingoccasional predatoryforaysintothe

peninsula by Cameroonian gendarmes. It is therefore unsurprising that we search in vain in

Cameroon'sevidence for indicators that thereare people in Bakassiwho want to be taken overby

Cameroon. Cameroon hassaid that there are many Nigerians livingin Bakassi. Sothere are,but

there is this great difference:in Bakassi, Nigerianslive under Nigerian rule. In Cameroonthey

live under Cameroonianrule.

5. .It is ironic, Mr.President, distinguished Members, that the distinguished Agent for

Cameroon referred in his opening address to what he called Nigeria's envy,which he said was

exacerbatedby the presence of oilwealth onBakassi. Nigeria'scase has nothing to do with envy.

Nigeria's primary interest is in its territory,and in the Nigerianinhabitants. Thisis obvious from

the well-documentedfacts. The distinguished Cameroon Agent'sown speech is in truth onlyone

in a large nurnberof indicators showing that, contrary towhat he says, it is Cameroon, and not

Nigeria, that regards Bakassi as little more than a mangrove swamp,to. be exploited for its

hydrocarbons. Cameroon wouldhavethe Courtbelieve thatthe peninsula is virtually unpopulated,

and doubtless that is what it would prefer, faced as it is by a large and determinedly Nigerian

population. Nigeria has painstakingly assembledthe impressivebody of evidencethat has been

lodged withthe Court in the course of the writtenproceedings. Itwas a lengthy and complextask

involving visits to a wide range of locations in and outside Bakassi. In tnith, whatever our

opponents say, it was not the kind of exercisethat could be successfully carried out by a United

Nations fact-findingor goodwillmissionto Bakassi. The evidence shows beyondany doubtat al1

that Bakassi has always been considered in Nigeria to be Nigerian sovereign temtory and an

integral partofthe Federal Republic ofNigeria.

6. The Bakassi Peninsula,is inhabitedby a population of Nigerianfishennen and farmers.

They are tied politically, culturally, historically and ethnographically to Nigeria. They pay

allegiance to Nigerian traditionalulers. They paytaxes to Nigeria. Their schools and clinicsare

built and run by Nigerian local authorities.Their links are to mainland Nigeria and not toCameroon. It is Nigeriathat has lookedafter thesepeople and continuouslyexercisedsovereignty

overthe land. Cameroonhas not.

7. Let me nowturn to the offshore maritime boundary. The Gulf of Guineais an areavery

rich in resources, both hydrocarbon and fish. It is an area of great importanceto the world's

petroleumindustry,andhas seenthousands of millions of dollars' worth of investmentoverthelast

40 years. Exceptfor inshorewaters,this maritimespacehas never been the subject of negotiations

betweenCameroon andNigeria, thereason being quite simplythat until the lodging ofCameroon's

Memorial, Cameroonhad made no claim. On the other hand, after a decade of amicable and

sincerenegotiations,Nigeriahas agreedits maritime boundarywith EquatorialGuinea. The Treaty

deliberatelyrefrains, for the time being, fiom extending the boundary into the area where both

Nigeriaand EquatorialGuineabelievethereto be a tripointwith Cameroon.

8. Nigeria has also negotiated, agreedand ratified ajoint development zone in the area of

overlappingclaims with Sao Tome and Principe. It is in the process of negotiating its maritime

boundary with the Republic of Benin. Al1of this conforms to the requirements of the United

NationsConventiononthe Law ofthe Sea. In markedcontrast,as far as we are aware, Cameroon

hasfailedto negotiateany of its maritimeboundarieswithany of its coastal neighbours. Indeed,in

bilateral contacts, ithasfailed evento present aclaimto thoseboundaries. Instead, outof nowhere,

Cameroon haspresentedthe Courtwithmaritimeclaimsthat are grosslyexaggerated,claimswhich

assume that the Court has jurisdiction to parce1out the area as a whole to the various Gulf of

GuineaStates.

9. As Nigeria has stated in its pleadings, the Cameroonian claim cuts through Nigeria's

maritime areas, where long-established oil concessions areto be found, and where oil companies

have invested huge sums. 1repeat: Cameroon hasnever before laid claim to these areas. These

licences, both Equatorial Guinean and Nigerian, have been public knowledge for many years.

Cameroonhas neverprotested aboutthem. Now it is tryingto havethe Court compensateit, atthe

expenseof its neighbours,for the facts of its geography andfor its own practices,its conduct, its

ownacquiescence.

10. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, this case also concems the

boundaries in Lake Chad, and the whole length of the land boundary fiom LakeChad to theBakassiPeninsula, aswell as issuesof Stateresponsibility. The factthat Cameroonadded mostof

these issues in a second Application clearly showsthat Cameroon regards them as of lesser

importance than its Bakassiclaimand its claimto a maritime boundarywell to theWestof Bakassi.

Aswe shallshow, theseclaims arevery muchanafterthought.

11. Nigeria will explain to the Court how it is that the boundary with Cameroon in

Lake Chad is still unresolved. As with Bakassi, so too in the areas of Nigeria claimed by

Cameroonin the region of LakeChad, a large population of Nigerians (approximately60,000 of

them) livesand works. In this area,too,al1theirties, religious, ethnographicandcultural,arewith

Nigeria, and in particular with Borno. Significant investmentin schools, clinics, administration

and infrastructure has been made by Nigeria in these towns and villages. Cameroon hasdone

nothing to assist the inhabitants, despite its claim to sovereignty. They consider themselves

Nigerians,and have alwaysbeenadministeredbyNigeria.

12. Lake Chad is an area with fundamental environmental problems, particularly the

diminishingsize of the Lake itself,andthese are highlightedin Nigeria's Counter-Mernorial.The

Lake Chad Basin Commission(the "LCBC") is a multilateral body comprisingthe littoral States

and the Central African Republic. It was established to deal with these issues. They are still

unresolved,andjoint actionby theseStates is imperativetoensure the continuinglivelihoodofthe

populationandto preventthe Lakedrying up completely. Nigeria isthemajor financial contributor

to theLCBC,and continuesto workon thesemajor problems.

13. Mr.President, distinguished Membersof the Court, Cameroon's firstround pleadings

showed yet again our opponents' persistent failure to face up to the real issues. For a start,

Camerooninvents argumentsit wouldprefer to dealwith, and substitutesthose invented arguments

for theones Nigeria has actuallyput forward. Furthermore, Carneroon's arguments have mostly

been basedon generalities. Cameroonis strikingly reluctantto get to grips eitherwith the textsor

with the other hard evidence. Cameroon's reluctance toengage withNigeria's case is combined

witha notable inconsistencyeveninthe way itpresents its own arguments. Its changesof position

areparticularlymarkedin relation tothe definitivespecificationof the land boundary,to particular

landboundary questions such as Tipsan,to Stateresponsibility,andto Cameroon'smaritime claim

lines. My distinguished colleagueswill return tothesemattersin duecourse. 14. Cameroon claims that Nigeria does not accept the treaties and instruments which

established the boundary betweenLake Chad and the BakassiPeninsula. This is then used as a

pretext forthe untenable claimthat Nigeria is anaggressiveneighbour, and1shall returnto that in

a moment. But first, sinceCameroon's first round speechesattempted yet again to misrepresent

our attitudeto the relevanttreaties and instruments,let me repeatur unchangedposition. Nigeria

accepts them in principle. It cannot accept them without qualification because, taken by

themselves,they contain defectswhichaffect the delimitationas such. Nigeria cannotacceptthem

without qualificationbecauseCameroon's conducthas calledinto question boundary delimitations

which Nigeriabelieves tobe clear. Nigeria has identified thearticular locationsin question,and it

is only those speczjk locations which qualiQ Nigeria's acceptance of the land boundary

instruments. Moreover, Nigeria has the following legitimate concem. If the Court were to do as

Cameroon wants- that is,simply toendorse the instrumentsas they stand- Carneroonwould

treat this as an endorsement of its version of the boundary. Yet that version is- as we will

show - wrong in many respects, and Cameroon's errorsinvolve questions of principle and of

definition,notjust of demarcation. There are a limitednurnberof quite specificdisputesalongthe

boundary. Several of themcould be separate casesbefore this Court. In aggregate, they affectan

areaof landactuallygreaterthan theBakassiPeninsula.

15. Nigeria regards the resolution of the land boundary issues raised by Cameroon as

fundamentally important for the maintenance of public order and for peaceful neighbourly

relations. For this reason, Nigeria in its Rejoinder suggestedhow these instruments might be

interpreted in a way which faithfully reflects what appears to have been the intentions of the

originaldrafters. The result is set out in the atlas accompanyingthe Rejoinder. Nigeria believes

that such an interpretationwould produce a sensibleand meaningful delimitationof the boundary

which, if it meets with the Court's approval, would afford a sound basis for a subsequent

demarcation on the ground. Carneroonhas offered no alternative. Nigeria invites the Court to

concludethatNigeria's interpretationrepresentsas closelyaspossible the intentionsunderlyingthe

delimitationincluded intherelevant instruments.

16.Mr.President, distinguished Membersof the Court, since these proceedings began, our

opponentshave missed no opportunityto portray us in a completelyfalselight, as aggressorsandinvaders,not only in Bakassibutelsewherealongthe boundary. Forthese purposesCameroonand

her counselsystematicallyuse inappropriate language. Incidentally,Mr. President, a new low for

sheerinventionwasreachedwhena speechlastFriday describedus aspractising"oil imperialism",

even going so far as to Saythat Nigeria had, and 1 quote, "imposed" a maritime boundary on

Equatorial ~uinea'. The Courtcan see thatthetreaty was an even-handedone, as it was amicable,

and will in due course hear Equatorial Guinea speak for itself. Cameroon's language of

"aggression" and "invasion" isparticularlyinflatedandundignified. That is Cameroon'sproblem.

Soisthe fact that thename-callingbegs thequestionstheCourt isto decide.

17.Cameroon'smisuseof languagemustbe viewedin light of the fact that the statusquoin

Bakassi is solidly Nigerian, and has been so for many decades. This is simply proved by the

evidencefor which our opponentspretend to such contempt. In lateryears, especiallyin the 1980s

and early 1990s,Carneroonmadevarious violentattemptsto disturbthe status quo. For example,

Cameroonarnbusheda peacefulNigerian patrolin the area in 1981,killing fiveNigerian soldiers.

Later, Cameroon had to apologizeand pay compensation2. Similarly,there has been a series of

well-documented incidents in which Cameroon's gendarmerie earned the very unsavoury

reputation itnow enjoys in Bakassithanks to violent forays into the peninsula and its molestation

of thepopulation3. For Carneroonto cal1Nigeria"aggressive" andan "invader" is thus the reverse

of the truth, as the Court canjudge fiom the evidence Carneroon is so afraid to discuss. The

referencesare in thetranscript.

18. Characteristically,Cameroon seeksto present Nigerian security reinforcements in late

1994asan "invasion", disingenuouslypretendingthattherehad beenno Nigerian securityforcesin

Bakassi prior to that date, and presenting as aggressionNigeria's very real need to reinforce its

military presence4. In the same way, Cameroonattacked on 5 February 1996,and then tried to

exploit theresulting situationby applyingtothe Court forthe indicationof interim measures. Yet,

what really happened was that Cameroon'sarmed forces bombarded the Nigerian town of

'CR2002/5, pp.51-52,paras.44-45.
2~ounter-~emorialof Nigeria, pa. 4.65-24.67; RejoinderofNigeria,paras.16.35-16.46.

%ee,forexample,Counter-Memoriaolf Nigeria,paras.10.160-10.180and25.9-25.13.
4~ounter-~emorialof Nigeria,para.24.94. 22. The Court should be aware that Nigeria's policies and performance in international

relations have always been amatterofjustified national pride. In 1960Nigeria became aMember

of the UnitedNations within a week of accedingto independence. Apopulous State- now of

some 120million people-Nigeria has alwayshad the willandpeacekeepingcapabilitiesto playa

leading rolein resolvingthe troublesof other Statesin thegionand in Afiica as a whole. Outside

Aiica, as inside, it has played an active role in peacekeeping operations throughoutthe world,

includingYugoslavia,TajikistanandLebanon. Over the yearsit has been involvedin no lessthan

20 UnitedNations missions.

23. The present Government of ChiefOlusegun Obasanjo hosted the Abuja summit in

October 2001, at which an agreement wasreachedin an attemptto resolve the landrights issue in

Zimbabwe. PresidentObasanjo's predecessor, Abdul Salami Abubakar, is the Head of the

Commonwealth team which has been sent to Zimbabwe to act as observers in the forthcoming

elections. Nigeria has also played an active role in trying to bring peace to the Democratic

Republic of Congo. In short, Nigeria'srecordin developingand maintaining peacein Afiica and

troubledregionsof other continentsis exemplary,and Nigeriatakes thisrole very seriously.

24.And that is not all. Nigeria has been involved in substantiveand amicablenegotiations

with her otherneighbours, Equatorial Guinea, SaoTome andPrincipe, and the Republics ofBenin,

Niger and Chad, as to boundaryquestions,landand maritime. This showsthat Cameroon'smer

assertion, that Nigeria is not prepared to negotiate, is likewise completely baseless. Perhaps

Cameroonshould take a closer lookat her poor negotiatingrecord with her own neighbours. The

saying "Peoplewho livein glass housesshouldn'tthrow stones"is appositehere.

25.Byher pleadings, persistentlettersandoral presentationsto this Court, Cameroontriesto

paint Nigeria ina very damaging light- a picture of a huge country well endowed with people

and resourcesbut hostileto its neighbours, abullynation, anirredentistnatioa,belligerent nation,

and in facta nation withexpansionist instincts. It is mytyto disabuseyour mindsof these false

impressionsthat Cameroon persistently attemptsto implantin them. Mr.President, distinguished

Membersof the Court,Nigeria isnot a hostile nation,it isnot a bully nation, noris it an irredentist

nation. Nigeria is not a belligerent nation,nor is it interested in expanding its frontiers at the

expense of its neighbours. On the contrary,Nigeriais one ofthe mostpeacefül countriesin Afiica,with a strongrecord of peacefùl neighbourliness. Nigeriahas never gone to war with any ofits

neighbours. Nigeria shares land and maritime boundaries with Niger, Chad, Benin, Equatorial

Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe, as well aswith Cameroon. It is only with Cameroonthat

things are different. These other countries will never agree with Cameroon's false and bloated

negativepresentation ofNigeria beforethis Court.

26. Mr.President,distinguishedMembersof the Court,Nigeriawill not, by detailedrebuttal,

lenddignitytothe Cameroonian allegationsthatit has not behavedproperly and in accordancewith

the procedureand processes of the Court. Theseallegationsscarcelycal1for much attentionfrom

eitherNigeriaor the Court. If Nigeriahas anycomment to makeon the conductof thismatter,it is

this: Nigeria regrets the long series of letters which Cameroonhas sent to the Registrar of the

Court since these proceedings began. Cameroonis not contentto keep its argumentswithin the

frameworkof the writtenpleadings,but persistentlyseeks to use lettersto the Courtas a meansto

introduce additional pleadings of a wholly inappropriate kind, and to produce still further

documents of little or no relevance to the real issues in this case. Nigeria has for the most part

refrained from being provoked into entering into this type of skirmishing within the litigation.

Acrimoniousand propaganda-ladencorrespondencebetweenthe Parties during the course of the

case over alleged incidents - if they happened at al1 - is, in Nigeria's view, unhelpful to the

Court. What role can Carneroon expect these letters to play? Like so much of Cameroon's

conduct, theymust surelybe intendedto prejudice the CourtagainstNigeria by publishing a long

listof unsubstantiatedallegations.

27. Thereis anotheraspect of Cameroon'sconduct which is worrying for Nigeria. Nigeria

hasjustified concernsforthe humanrights bothof its own citizensharassedin theborderareasand

also of Nigeriansliving in Cameroon. There area substantial nurnberof reports of maltreatmentof

Nigerian citizensin Cameroon. Cameroonis a State where many people of Nigerian descentare

being made to feel like second-class citizens. Recent reports from the British Broadcasting

Corporation (BBC), on 5 October 2001, stated that Cameroonianpolice have clamped down on

theirrightstoprotest. 1quote

"Earlier this week, riot police violently broke up banned marches, trailed as
non-violent gatherings by English-speaking [inhabitants],in two toms in western
Cameroon. The authoritiessaidthey wereprovoked,butit is clearthat they were well prepared, having dispatchedelite troops fiom the capital, Yaoundé,and neighbouring
provinces intothe area.

Leaders of the English-speakingminority have increasingly complained that
they are treated as second-class citizens. They Saythat they are exempted fiom top
governmentjobs . . .

Newspapers - the public'smain source of news - are subject to considerable
govemmentrestrictions. Libel laws are used to inhibit the press andjournalists have

beenjailed asa result."

28.The UnitedNations Commission onHumanRightshas a Special Rapporteuron Torture.

He visited Cameroon in 1999. Nigeria drew attention in its Rejoinder to his report, dated

11Novemberof thatyear. Cameroonchooses to sweepthis aside. Please allow meto quoteagain

fiom that UnitedNations report, which statedthat "tortureis widespreadand used indiscriminately

againstmany people under arrest". The report goes onto state that there is independent evidence

that in Cameroon "torture is resorted to by law enforcement officiais on a widespread and

systematicbasis".

29. Cameroonis therefore hardly a State to whichNigerianswould wish to belong. And, 1

can assure you that the very substantial populations involved vehementlydo not want to be

transferred to Carneroonian sovereignty. We have presented in our pleadings contemporaneous

notes of interviews held during trips to the disputed areas, which manifestly showthe desire of

these localpopulationsto remainpart ofNigeria.

30. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court,over the next few days, we shall

highlight some of the many proofs that Bakassi belongs to Nigeria, that the boundaries in

Lake Chad are still to be finally determined by the riparian States, that Cameroon's claims in

respect ofthe landboundary areincorrect,that Cameroon's maritime claim in the Gulf of Guineais

untenable and that it is not Nigeria which has carried out acts which give rise to State

responsibility,but Cameroon.

31.Mr. President, distinguishedMembers ofthe Court,it is now my honourto introducethe

advocateswho will present Nigeria's casebefore the Court. Both of my distinguishedcolleagues

and Co-Agents, Chief Richard Akinjide and Alhaji AbdullahiIbrahim, each a former

Attorney-Generaland Minister of Justice,will be addressingthe Court, the formerin the course of

the secondround, thelatter onMonday. 32. Nigeria will begin, today and tomorrow, by dealing with the heart of this case, the

Bakassi Peninsula. Mrs.Nella Andem-Ewa, the Attorney-General of Cross River State, the

Nigerian Stateof which Bakassi is part,will give you abriefortrayalof the peninsula,its culture

and people.

33. SirArthur Watts will then examine the position of Bakassi before Independence,then

deal withthe March 1913Anglo-GermanTreaty. Tomorrow, Mr.Ian Brownlie willdeal with the

post-Independence historyof the BakassiPeninsulaand describethe constituentsof Nigeria's legal

title.

34.Next week, Professor GeorgesAbi-Saabwill setout Nigeria'sposition on the conceptof

utipossidetis jurisAlhajiIbrahim, who you will recall addressed you as Agent during the oral

hearings onthe preliminary objections,will open ourpresentation ofthe land boundaryissues. He

will be followedby SirArthur WattsandMr. AlastairMacdonald, whowill outlineand explainthe

legal andgeographical issues.

35. Thereafter, Mr. Ian Brownlie will discuss the matters at stake in the Lake Chad area.

ProfessorJamesCrawford willthen introducesome generalaspectsof the maritimeboundary,and

he and ProfessorAbi-Saabwill thenprovideand completea more detailedstudyofthis issue.

36. Thereafter, Sir ArthurWatts and ProfessorAbi-Saab will address you on State

responsibilityand Professor Crawfordon counter-claims.

37. Mr.President, distinguished Members of the Court,thank you for your attention and

patience. 1askyou pleaseto cal1Mrs.Nella Andem-Ewa.

Le PRESIDENT :Je vous remercie, MonsieurleMinistre. 1 now give the floor to

Mrs. Nella Andem-Ewa,Attorney-Generalof CrossRiver State. Youhave the floor.

Mrs. ANDEM-EWA:

INTRODUCTIONTO BAKASSI

1. Mr.President, distinguished Members of theCourt, it is a rare privilege for me, as the

Attomey-General of Cross River Stateof the Federal Republicof Nigeria, to appear before this

distinguished body. 2. Cross River State is one of the 36 States which, together with the Federal Capital

Territory,make upthe FederalRepublicofNigeria. It is situatedinthe south-eastof the country.

3. Cross River State shares a commonborder with Carneroonfor some 277 km, fiom the

Obuduhighlands in the northem part of the State throughlush tropical rainforestto the mangrove

forestsofthe Bakassi Peninsulaat its southemtip.

4. The Bakassi Peninsulaitself has a landmass coveringan area of approximately700km2,

andis pnncipally made up of anetwork ofislandsandcreeks.

5. Transport between thevarious islands is by water, particularly through creeks of varying

size andnavigability. Onthe screennowarea couple ofphotographsof the waterways. Thesecan

be foundat tab 1of thejudges' folder. Asyou can see, Bakassi has avery rich and diverseaquatic

life. The confluence of rivers in the region creates undercurrentplanktons suitable for breeding

various species of fish, crayfish,shrimps and lobsters. It is hardly surprising therefore that the

abundanceof thesenaturalresources hasmeantthat the areahas beenreadily exploitedby the local

population,with theresultthat fishingisthe predominantoccupationof the inhabitantsof Bakassi.

6. The vegetation in Bakassi is thick and dense, withthe principal Borabeing mangroves,

characterizedby arching roots. Further inlandfromthe Coast,the mangrovesgive way to very old

and well-established rainforest,as can be found in areas around Archibong Town, Akwa and

Mbenmong. On the screennow are somephotographs ofthe rainforests of the region. These can

alsobe found undertab 1ofthejudges' folder.

7. The Bakassi Peninsula forms part of Cross River State. At Independence, it was

administered as part of Akpabuyo Local Council, thereafterit was adrninisteredunder Odukpani

Local Government Area, and then under Akpabuyo Local GovernmentArea. Bakassi Local

GovernmentArea was createdin 1996. It is now oneofthe 18LocalGovernmentAreas thatmake

up CrossRiver State. The headquartersofthis LocalGovernmentArea is at Abana,on thewestern

shore of the peninsula. On the screen now, and in yourjudges' folder at tab 2, is a selection of

photographs of Abana. From these you can see that Abana is a large town, with permanent

structures. It also has an establishedommunity- as you can see- contrary to the impression

given by Carneroonthat it is a smallfishingsettlementwithan itinerant populationof fishermen. 8. The photograph now on the screen, which can be found at tab 3, shows some of the

population of Abana. This photograph was taken during a visit to the area in June 1997 by

members of the Nigerian legal team and, since they were visiting an area on high alert, they

required armed protection. Onthe left of thephotographare the village chiefs where the arrow

indicates- and the elders are next to them. In the centre are dancers dressed in traditional Efik

attire,calledAbang.

9. Nigeria has prepared a short video which, with your kind permission,shall be playedto

the Court in order to give the distinguished Judges a better understanding of the area 1 am

describing. Similarimagesto thesewere included in VolumeXII ofthe Counter-Memorialandare

at tab4 of thejudges' folder.

Le PRESIDENT : Excusez-moi. May1interruptone second. The practicehas alwaysbeen

that if videos are to be shown, theyhave to be communicatedto the Regisûy andto the otherParty

in advance. Has thisbeen done?

Mrs. ANDEM-EWA: Thishas not beendone.

ThePRESIDENT: Canwepostponetheprojection ofthis videoto a laterstage?

Mrs. ANDEM-EWA: Yes. Thank youvery much.

History

10. Now, let me explain briefly to you some of the history of the peninsula. It has been

establishedin Nigeria'swrittenpleadings that,for severalcenturies,the region extending fiomthe

lower Cross River up to and around its estuaryhas beenknown as the City Statesof Old Calabar.

The extentof this regionis shownin red onthemap nowon screen,which canbe found at tab5 of

thejudges' folder.

11.History confirms that oneor moreEfik clansmade their way to the lowerreachesofthe

CrossRiver, beyondthe regionofthe AkwayafeRiverupto the Rio delRey sometime after1700~.

%ee Daryll Forde(edEfi kradersofOIdCalabar,London, 1956,p. 27; TheDi(785-8o)fAnteraDuke,
at p. 43. A copy of thisbook hasbeen lodgedwith theCourt. 12.Thereis historical evidence thatthe firstEfik to settleon Bakassiwas ChiefAbasiEke,a

native of Creek Town, Old Calabar. Archibong Town and Mbenmong were founded by

descendants of King Archibong 1, one of the Kings of Old Calabar who reigned from 1849 to

18527.

13. Bythe late fifteenthcentury,al1the clansthat made upOld Calabarpaid homage,tribute

and allegianceto the Obongof Calabar. The Obongin turnprovided themwith protectionagainst

aggression. Rightup intothe colonial period, however, treatieswere enteredinto by the Kings and

Chiefs of Old Calabar. Despite ProfessorNtarnark'sassertionthat the Kings and Chiefswere not

an independent entity capable of entering into international agreements,Nigeria has clearly

produced evidence to the contrary in its ~ounter-~emorial*. Such blatant disregard of true

historicalfactsisnot appropriatein thisforum.

14. The Efik polity predates the 1400s. It still administers its temtories through the

Etuboms, who are representatives of the various clans from which an Obong is selected. The

Etuboms constitute themselvesinto a council,which formsthe nucleus of the Obong'sCouncil,a

goveming bodythat operateslike a parliament,representingtheinterests ofthe citizenry.

15. The Efyltsal1regard the Obong's rolein society as being of great importance, and the

Obong himself takes his position and the protection of his people very, very seriously. For

instance, when it was thought that the British administrationin the region was attempting to

transfer the ownership of the natives' landor dispossess them, the then Obong Edem Efefiong

directedtwo ofhis sons - Prince BasseyDuke (whosestatueadoms the citycentre ofpresent-day

Calabar) and Prince James Eyo Ita (who later became King Eyo Honesly 1X)- to present a

rnernorandum on this issue on behalf of the native comrnunities to the British Crown and

Parliamentin p on don^.TheBritish Governmentvehemently deniedany suchatternpt.

16.The localculturaland social affiliationbetween theinhabitantsofBakassi andthe Obong

of Calabar is of extreme importance. Mr.Ian Brownlie will discuss these affiliations in greater

detail tomonow. Suffice it to say, however, thatit is very significanthat,as a matter of wholly

'"~he Kingsand ChiefsofOld Calabar"by EkeiEssienOku, pp. 55-62.
'counter-MernorialofNigeria, Vol.IV,Anns.NC-M3-NC-M 14andNC-M 21-NC-M23.

9~ounter-~ernorialofNigeria, Vol. VI,Anns. NC-M110.consistent practice,the Obong of Calabar and the Etubom's Council have always regarded and

administeredthe Bakassi Peninsula as part of theKingdom and City States of Old Calabar, and

thereforeof Nigeria.

17.Apart fromthepolitical administrationofthe Efik monarchy,lawandorder was,and still

is, maintained through aonfiatemity called "Ekpe". The Ekpe Society is unique to the Efiks. It

represents the strongest traditional administrative and judicial organization in theea, and

CO-existsalongsidemore recent religiousand administrativebodies. The Ekpeshrines arein every

Efikcommunity. It is worthy of note that an Ekpe shrine was referred to in Antera Duke's diary

entryas far backas 8 February 1786whenhe referredto his walkwith one ArchibongDuke up to

thepalaver house(which is also called"ufok afanikong")on Bakassi,where the "efe Ekpe",which

means Ekpe shrine, was situated". The main Ekpe shrines are in the major towns on Bakassi,

includingAkwa,Archibong,Abana andWestAtabong.

18. The EkpeSocietyis one of the most fundamentaliyimportant aspectsof life on Bakassi

and amongst the Efks in the region generally. The significance of this organization is felt

throughoutthe area,inBakassi,in theruralareasof south-eastemNigeria andalso in thetowns and

citiesof theregion,includingCalabar. The Ekpe Society centresaround the Palaver House,which

is the "efe Ekpe". Only respected Chiefs and elders are pennitted access to the Palaver House.

The Society has established a methodof governingmorally,judicially and administrativelyin the

region,and adherenceto theprinciplesofEkpe is centralto the dailylife of Efi kopulation.

Physical and socialgeography

19. Mr. President1 now wish to describe the geographyof the peninsula in greater detail.

Despitethere being a large covering of mangroves, large areas of the peninsula are conduciveto

habitation and have been inhabited since the firstEfik settlers arrived. The northem end of

Bakassi,at the point wherethe Akpa YafeRiver turns west, is well above sea level. Townsin the

north,Archibong,Mbenmongand Akwa,arebuilt onsolid earth,some 15feetabove sealevel. For

nearlytwo centuriesthere havebeen solidpermanentstructuresin these towns. The oldMethodist

'O~hDiaïy ofAnteraDuke,p.43 suprafootnote1.church at Archibong Town, for instance,dates back to the 1880s. Also, the Ekpe Shrine at

Archibongis the oldest on Bakassi.

20. In the southem areasof Bakassi,along the coastal reaches,there are large areasof sandy

beaches stretchingin a numberof places for severalhundreds of metres, both along the Coastand

inland. Thesearedevoid ofvegetationandthereforeidealplaces for establishing habitation.Some

of the largersettlementsin the south including Eastand West Atabong,Abanaand Onosi,as well

as IneAkpa Ikangin the north,are built on these stretches of sand. These are amongstthe largest

of thetoms onBakassi, idealfor fishingandtrading.

21. Al1the larger towns on Bakassi, such as Archibong Town, Abana and West Atabong,

have modem facilitiesand institutionsincludinglocalchurches,schoolsand clinics. WestAtabong

and Abana also have their own markets. Water purification schemes havebeen built up in the

major towns, and elecîricity has recently been established. Indeed, West Atabongeven has a

cinema.

22. It is clearthereforethat the Bakassi Peninsulais not an uninhabitablemangrove swamp,

populatedonlyby itinerant fishermen. No, it is not. In fact, it sustains a permanent population of

over 150,000people,the vastmajority ofwhom liveal1year round in the toms 1have mentioned

and in smaller fishing villagesuch as IneEkpo, Ine Utan, Onosi,Ine Akpak, Ine Odiongand Ine

NkanOkure. These smaller settlements, builtin arnongstthe creeks and therefore protectedfiom

tidal watersandstorms, arejust as permanent as the other,largertowns.

23. Since the fifteenth century, the inhabitants have fished, fmed and traded with the

mainland, principallywith Calabar,Ikang,Jamestownand Oron - which areinNigeria. Itshould

be noted, incidentally,that theCross Riverestuary hasbeen, for many years, an importanttrading

route between Calabarand otherplaces inthe area, includingFemando Po, nowcalled Bioko. The

local administrationinfiastructure followedthese inhabitants. Those inhabitantsof the towns and

villages in the northern part of Bakassi paid their taxes to the tax collectors fiom Ikot Nakanda,

they traded at Ikang market, attended schools, clinics and courts in Ikang, Ikot Nakanda and

Calabar.

24.The southem part ofBakassiwassettledbypeoplefiom across the Calabarestuaryto the

West,whowere,again, predominately fishermen. Theybuilt homeson the largesandy areasof theBakassi Peninsula on the southem shores, fiom which villages developed and grew at East and

WestAtabong, amongst others. These fishermen tradedwiththe mainland acrossthe estuary, with

Oron,Jamestown,Atabong Beachand Calabar. Taxeswere collectedfiom thevillages established

on Bakassiby inspectorsfiom Jamestown, forinstance,and schoolsand clinicswere set up by the

localgovernmentadministrationbased in Enwang,JamestownandOron.

Ethnography

25. Mr. President, distinguished Membersof the Court, 1turnnow to the ethnography of

Bakassi. As my earlier commentshave show, the BakassiPeninsulais habitable,and a substantial

population lives andworks there. The inhabitants of themajority of the Bakassi Peninsula are

almost exclusivelyEfik, havingbeensettledoriginallyby Efik clansand descendantsof Efikkings.

Theyarefiom, andafiliated to, theEfi keoplewho livein Calabarand the surroundingareato the

northandsouth.

26.The linksbetween thepeoplewhoinhabitthenorthemparts of Bakassiand the mainland

south of Calabar, and indeed Calabar itself, are manifold and manifest. They share a custom:

matters such as traditional attire, wedding ceremonies, naming and burial ceremonies, beliefs,

music, food are thesame in Calabaras they are in Bakassi. Theyshare the same language. The

Efik languagespokenby the inhabitantsofBakassiis spoken throughoutCalabar,Bakassiupto the

Rio delRey. It is not spoken bythe Cameroonians- it is not. As far back asthe 1880sthe Efiks

had builttrading outpostsontheRiodel Reyand Efik was widelyspokenin theregion.

27. It is worthnoting that the narnesof towns and settlementsin the entiretyof the Bakassi

Peninsulaare Efik names, and havealways been so. As 1stated earlier, the word "Ine", used to

prefix mostof thesenarnes, means"fishing settlement"intheEfi kanguage.

28. There is also anothertribe which founded some towns in the most southerly part of

Bakassi, and these are the Effiats. They originated from across the Calabar estuary, fiom towns

such as Jarnestown and TomShot, in what now forms part of Akwa Ibom State. On

11September1884,the chiefsofTom Shotsigned a treaty in whichthey affirmedthat they would

be "subjectto the authority andjurisdiction ofthe Kings and Chiefsof Oldlabar"". Sincethat

II
Counter-Mernoriafl Nigeria,VolAM.,NC-M 23.timethe Effiatshave become assimilatedinto Efikculture, so that they now share strong cultural

similaritieswiththe Efiks,includingthe Ekpe Society,the Ekpe traditionalattire,music and food,

forexarnple. There is also a keen similarityin their dialect. Although originally distinct fromthe

Efiks,these differencestoday are almostimperceptible,and they have co-existedin the peninsula

withoutdisputeover the lasttwo centuries.

29. It isgainworthnoting that thevillages in the southempart of Bakassi sharenames with

Effiatvillages andtowns on the mainland. Ine Okopediis named after Okopedi, atown which is

nowthe headquartersof Oron local governmentarea. East and West Atabongderivetheir names

fromAtabong Beach, a commercialtownon the westernbanks ofthe CalabarRiver.

30. In morerecent times, therehasbeen anincreasingimmigration into this rich fishing area

bymigrant fishermenfromother tribesofNigeria, suchas the Ijaws, Andonis, Ibibiosand Ogonis.

There are, however, no Cameroonian fishermen in these waters or living in the Bakassi

Peninsula - none.

31.Mr. President, distinguished Membersofthe Court, 1should at this pointexplainbriefly

the history of a dispute over attributionof the Bakassi Peninsula between two Nigerian States,

CrossRiver State,whichismy own State,and AkwaIbom State.

32. Cross River State and Akwa Ibom Stateused to be part of a larger State called South

Eastern State. This was renamed Cross River State in 1976. During this period, the Bakassi

Peninsulawas administeredby two localgovemment areas within that State. The majority of the

peninsula was administeredby AkpabuyoLocal Govemment Area, while the most southerlypart

was administered by the local govemment areas on the mainland Westof the Calabar estuary.

Mr.Ian Brownliewill discussthis in detailtomorrow.

33. In 1987CrossRiverStatewasdivided intotwo, withAkwaIbom Statebeing createdout

of the south-western thirdof the old State. This meant that the Local Government Areas, which

were adrninisteringthe BakassiPeninsulawere now in two different Statesin Nigeria. A dispute

arose: of course,the disputewas betweenthe two States as to which of them shouldgovern the

wholeof Bakassi.

34. This intensifiedin the early 1990s,andtroopswere sentto the areato ensurepublic order

wasmaintained. In 1996the Federal Governent created Bakassi Local GovernrnentArea, withits headquartersat Abana, asa constituentpart of CrossRiver State. Althoughthis decisionwas

disputedby AkwaIbom State,the 1999Constitution,whichliststhe constituent Local Government

Areas within each State, puts Bakassi Local Government Area within Cross River State.

Consequently,the matterhasbeenlaidtorest. This disputewaswidelypublicized and yet, whileit

was going on, nota word- not a wordofprotestorconcem - was expressedby Carneroon. For

Cameroon nowto suggest that the creationof Bakassi Local GovernmentArea was in order to

presentthe Courtwith a fait accompli blatantly ignorsot onlythe historicalties of the areawith

the Obong of Calabar, but also the history of administrationof the peninsula by successive

NigerianLocalGovernmentAreasovermany,manyyears.

Nigeria'soriginaltitle

35. In conclusion,Mr.President, distinguished Membersof the Court, let me Say a few

words about the legal position of Bakassi, to add to what 1 have said about its geographical,

historicalandcultural characteristics.

36. First, though, let me clari@onepoint of terminology. 1refer to Bakassias"Nigerian".

But, of course, Nigeria as it exists today-a separate,unified and identifiable State- did not

exist,Say,a hundred ortwo hundredyearsago. Tousetheterm"Nigerian"to describethe landsto

which 1 am now referring as they were in the nineteenth century is, therefore, somewhat

anachronistic:to a considerable degreethesameistrueof Cameroonandtheterm "Cameroonian".

But, Mr.President, 1 trust that the Court will appreciatethat the use of the modem adjective

"Nigerian" in relation to the circumstancesof the nineteenthcentury is botha simplematter of

convenience,andappropriateness. The chain of identityfromthe Kings andChiefsof OldCalabar

to present-dayNigeriais clearenoughandcannotbewished awayby Carneroon.

37. Carneroondoes, of course, disputeBakassi'scuri-entstatus aspart of Nigeria. But, as

Nigeria hasshown12t ,here is no doubtthathistorically Bakassiis Nigerian. Nigeria'sforerunners

in thisareawerethe KingsandChiefsof OldCalabar. Theywerenotjust a miscellaneousgroupof

undeveloped tribes. They were,rather, an entity with recognizedsovereignstatus. Within their

territory theyruledwith sovereign authoritywith the outsideworld they conducted their relations

'2~ounter-~emorialof Nigeria,pp. 67-76,paras.5.1-5.20; Rejoinderof Nigeria, pp. 8-21,paras. 1.6-1.21.through an extensive network of treaties, including treaties bothwith Great Britain and other

States: Nigeria's Counter-Memorial contains a long, but even so not necessarily complete, list of

suchtreaties13.

38. The Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar exercisedtheir sovereign authorityover a large

area aroundthe Calabar estuary: that authority extended a considerabledistance to the east. The

Bakassi Peninsula was therefore clearlywithin theirdomains. Of that therecan be nodoubt.

39. One must ask, Mr. President, what can have happened to change that clear position.

Nigeria's answer is simple- nothing. A century ago Bakassi was clearly and adrnittedly

Nigerian; the sameremainstoday. Bakassiwas,and stillis,Nigeriantemtory.

40. Cameroon's answer,of course,is different. But what, Mr. President, does it amount to?

If onetakesawaythe surroundingrhetoric, itinvolvesessentiallytwopropositions.

(a) The first is that, by a series of negotiationsin the closingyears of the nineteenth century and

the early years of the twentieth century, Nigerian territory was progressively given up and

taken intowhat is now Cameroon, and that that process included theNigerian temtory of the

BakassiPe'ninsula.

(b) The second proposition on which Carneroonrelies is that Cameroon has in practice been

presentinBakassi, whereit has exercisedthenormal attributesoftemtorial sovereignty.

41. Mr.President and distinguished Membersof the Court, Nigeriahas alreadyexplainedin

itswrittenpleadings thatthosetwo propositionsarebothwrongin fact andin law.

42. That they are wrong in fact is, as SirArthurWatts and Mr.Ian Brownlie will explain

today and tomorrow, apparentfiom the factual record, whichis alreadybefore the Court. That

factual record makes abundantly clear the extent of Nigerianadministration of, and exercise of

sovereigntyover,the BakassiPeninsula, and the absence ofany comparableCarneroonianactivity.

43. Carneroonis misguidedin its legal argumentsandthis is equallyapparentfiom a simple

statement ofwhat those argumentsamountto.

(a) In the firstplace they involve giving weightto a seriesof proposed agreementsas if they had

enteredinto force: butthey neverdid enter into force.

13~ounter-~emoriolfNigeria,pp.71-74,paras.5.11-5.13;andRejoinderofNigeria,AM. NR 1.(5) In the secondplace they involvethe astounding propositionthat a State can give to another

State something- in this instance, apiece of temtory - which the first State doesnot itself

have. Mr.President,therecan be few, if any,legal principlesmore universallyrespectedthan

that expressedin the maxim nemodat quodnonhabet. Yet Carneroonwishes this Court to

deny respectfor that legal principle. Cameroonwishes this Court to agree that GreatBritain,

which did not have sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula, could nevertheless give that

territory to Germanyandthus, later,to Cameroon. One has only to statethat argumentto see

that it is nott fundarnentallyflawed inlaw but contrary tothe most elementary notionsof

justice.

44. Mr. President, distinguishedMembersofthe Court, thismight be a convenient tamefor

coffeebreak. Afierthe coffee bre-k or evennow,if the Courtprefers- 1please askyouto cal1

SirArthurWatts, whowill develop in greater detail these aspectsof Nigeria's Thank you,

Mr.President.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. 1understand SirArthurwould prefer probably

not to be interrupted,so we willke the coffee break now. Par conséquent,nous suspendonsla

séancepour unedizaine de minutes.

TheCourtadjournedfiom11.20p.m. to 11.30p.m.

Le PRESIDENT :Veuillez vous asseoir. La séanceest reprise et je donne la parole a

SirArthu r atts.

SirArthurWATTS: Thank you, Mr.President.

PRE-INDEPENDENCE BAKASSI
1.Mr. President,Members of the Cour1havethe honour,once again,to appearbeforeyou,

on behalf of the FederalRepublicofNigeria.

2. My taskis to presentthe firstpart of Nigeria'scase ontitle to Bakassi. 1shall addressthe

history of Bakassi up to theearly years of the twentieth century, including in particular the

significanceof the ProtectorateTreaty of 1884.n 1shall tum to the Anglo-GermanTreaîy ofMach 1913. Finally, 1 shall consider the administration of Bakassifiom 1913until Nigeria's

attainmentof independencein 1960.

Bakassiupto theearlyyears ofthetwentiethcentury

3. A brief accountof the earlyperiod ofBakassi'shistory will,1believe, assistthe Court in

its understanding of thelater developmentswhich are central to this case. In doing so 1will, as

Mrs. Andem-Ewadid,for convenience,usethetenn "Nigerian"in relationto the earlierperiodsfor

which, strictly speaking,thattenn is inexact. 1do not believe, Mr.President,that any confusionis

likely to result: theinkbetween today'sNigeriaand yesterday'sOldCalabar isclear14.

4. Cameroon would appear toprefer thatNigeria should Saynothing about OldCalabar. It

is, theySay,a "mysteriousentity", a "mythical entity", evena "mirage". The onlymystery is how

Cameroon canformsucha view. OldCalabarwas, as 1willexplain,veryreal indeed.

5.1 shallpick up only twopoints in theearly historyof Bakassi: first, that it was part ofthe

domainsofthe Kings and ChiefsofOld Calabar; second, thatthe Kingsand Chiefsof Old Calabar

possessedinternationallegalpersonality, andinparticularthe capacity toconcludetreaties.

6.The geographicalextent ofthe temtories under the authorityand control ofthe Kingsand

Chiefs of Old Calabar has been explored in some detail in Chapters4 and 5 of Nigeria's

Conter-Memorial. Nigeria has thereshownthatin south-eastemNigeria, in theperiod afier 1700,

the chieftribeswerethe Efiks andthe Efiat.

7. Many Efik towns were clustered together around the mouth of the Cross River- on

earlier maps often marked as the CalabarRiver. This areawas known as Old Calabar,and it was

the centreof Efik activityand authority. An oldmap- it dates fi-om1822 and it is at tab 6 inthe

judges' folders, and now on the screen- shows these towns, towns such as Duke Town, Creek

Town, Henshaw Townand Obutong Town, also know as Old Town. Other Efik towns were

further afield- such as Tom Shott'sTown, and Arsibon'sTown (now Archibong) - not shown

on this oldmap but approximatelyin the areanow being indicated: itis shown on other mapsin

Nigeria's Counter-Memorial. Eachof these towns, or "Houses" - virtually CityStates- had its

own King orChief, so that by the early nineteenth centmy there were several local Kings in Old

'4~ounter-~emoril fNigeria,p.11para.10.1.Calabar. From these there gradually emergedthe paramount chieftaincy or kingship - later the

Obongship - of Old Calabar. Cameroonseeksto poke fun at this process, but asthe Court will

know, it reflects averynormal processof institutionaland constitutionalevolution.

8. In the nineteenthcentury Old Calabarwas a majorport- a glanceat the map will show

what a geographicallyfavoured locationit was. Old Calabarand its Efik"Houses" had established

their authoritynot only over the areaaround Old Calabar, but also over al1the landsbetween the

CrossRiverand the Riodel Rey. Theareasubjectto the direct mle ofthe Kings andChiefs of Old

Calabaristhe red areashown on themap at tab7 in thejudges' folders,and on the screen now- a

map which has alreadybeen seenthismoming.

9.These activitiesof the "Houses" of Old Calabar includedthe founding of settlementson

the Bakassi Peninsula. Those settlements, and the villages and towns into which they soon

developed,were withinthe dominionsof Old Calabar: theyare specifically identifiedin Chapter3

ofNigeria's ~ounter-~emorial'~. Themap showsthe dispositionof thevarious CityStatesand the

relationship with the Bakassi Peninsula.

10. Evidence fiom the period immediately following the conclusion of the 1884Treaty of

Protection, andtestifyingto the extentof OldCalabar, and inparticular its inclusion ofthe Bakassi

Peninsula, has been set out in Nigeria's ~ounter-~emorial'~. Without reading the relevant

quotationsin full, letmejust pick outthe keypassages.

11. First there is the memorandurnwhich Heweît, the British consul who negotiated the

1884Treaty, sent back to London with his report of the signingof the Treaty: in it he describes

Old Calabar in the following terms: "This country with its dependencies extends fiom Tom

Shots ... to the RiverRumby (ontheWestofthe CameroonMountains),both inclusive."

12.Theselocationsare on themap onthe screen, andattab 8 inthejudges' folders.

13.Second is a report to the Foreign Officejust six years later, in 1890, by a later Consul,

Johnston. In it he states "the rule of the Old Calabar Chiefsextended far beyond the Akpayafe

River to the very base of the Cameroon Mountains", qualifying this by adding that the "Efik

people ...onlywent asfax-east asthenght bankof the Ndian River". Hewent on:

-

'S~ounter-~emoriaolfNigeria,pp.37-39,paras.3.37-3.43.
'6~ounter-~emoriaolfNigeria,pp.94-96,paras.6.35-6.36. "The trade andrule of the Old CalabarChiefs extended,in 1887,considerably
Mer to the east thanthe NdianRiver. .. The lefl or eastern bankof the Akpayafe
andtheland betweenthat riverandthe Ndianisundertherule of Asibonor Archibong
EdemIII,a big Chiefof OldCalabar ..."

Heconcludedby reportingthat the Old CalabarChiefshad withdrawn fiom the lands east of the

Ndian, to which obviously Johnstonthought that they had a somewhat dubious title; but that

giving up any additional territory would cause real trouble as it would involve "their real,

undoubted temtory". SoJohnston's report was,ineffect,thatwhile the territorybeyondthe Ndian

mightonly arguablybe OldCalabar's, territorytotheWestbelonged"undoubtedly"to Old Calabar.

Bakassi,andthe Rio del Rey, are demonstrablyto the Westof the Ndian: Bakassi,Mr.President

andMembersofthe Court,was partof Old Calabar's heartlands.

14. Carneroonsoughtto argue that it was wholly inappropriateto talk of Old Calabar as

though it acknowledgedthekind of territorialconceptualfiameworkwhichis commonin modem

European practice. Old Calabar, and similar peoples, it was said, simply did not have forma1

defined territoriallimits, and this showed that for Nigeria to talk of Bakassi beingpart of Old

Calabar'stemtories was entirelyanachronistic.

15. Mr.President andMembersof the Court,most Statesnowadays have well-definedand

agreedterritorial boundariesbecause that is how internationallife has developed. But it has not

alwaysbeen so. Formally delimitedfiontiers emerged onlygradually, as the need for territorial

certaintyarose. And it is clearthat fixed and agreedboundariesare in no way a preconditionfor

internationalpersonality,eventoday: anumberof Stateshaveboundarieswhichareto a greateror

lesserextentunsettled.

16. A century and more ago, thatwas evenmore the position. The Court decided in the

WesternSahara caseI7thateven nomadictribes whoare presentin a territoryandhave asocial and

political organizationhavea sufficientexistenceininternationallaw to preventtheir temtory being

terra nullius. Consequentlytitle to theirtemtories was acquired,not unilaterallyby occupationas

inthe caseofterra nullius,but "throughagreementsconcludedwith localrulers"'*. TheKings and

Chiefsof Old Calabarweremuchmorethan nomadictribes, as1shall showin a moment.

"I.c.J. Reports 19p.3.
I8Ibidp.39. 17. There was no need for the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar to have formally defined

territorial limits.Their tribal affinities and social structures were entirely sufficient, in the

circumstances ofthe time, to give their authority its temtorial dimension. And they were well

aware of what, temtorially speaking, was theirs and what was someoneelse's. When they

concluded a treatywith Great Britainin 185619,the party to the Treaîy was "the Chiefs of Old

Town,Old Calabaron thepartof themselvesandtheir counmy'.When KingArchibong IIIandhis

Chiefsin 1878concludeda treaty withGreat Britainon trade andcommerce, it referredto "al1the

landwhere he claims s~vereignty"~~W . hen GreatBritain proposedthe inclusion,in theTreatyof

Protection of 1884,of an article providingfor freedomof trade "in everypart of the temtories of

theKings and Chiefs",they rejectedthat article,in orderto protecttheir inlandareas fiom foreign

commercialencroachments2'.They knewperfectly well what their"sovereignty"referredto, what

"their country" was and what "their temtories" meant, and the particular value to them of their

inlandareas. Their temtorial sense waswell developed even iftheir boundarieswere notwritten

downon someformalpieceofpaper.

18. Therecan thusbeno doubt,Mr.Presidentand Membersof the Court,that in the 1st half

ofthenineteenthcentury Bakassiwasunderthe authorityofOldCalabar.

19. Onemust then go on to ask, however, what kindof entity was this "Old Calabar" of

whichBakassi was a dependency? Andthat answeris also clear,and has been given in Nigeria's

Counter-Memorial: "Old Calabar andits componentCity States[were] independententitieswith

internationallegalpersonality"22.

20. Now, it is apparentfiom the very title "Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar" that we are

taking not of a single unitaryentity,butrather ofa groupingofpolitical units,effectivelyseparate

CityStates - theprincipalamongwhichwere DukeTown (whichbecameknown as OldCalabar,

andlater the present-dayCalabar),CreekTown and Old Town(also Obutong). Each hadits own

territorial basis,but at the sametimeworked togetherwith the otherswithin asingle loosepolitical

19
Counter-MemoriaolfNigeria,Ann6.
ZO~ounter-~emorio aflNigeria,Ann.15;Counter-MernoraflNigeria,pp. 88-89,para.6.21.

21~ounter-~emoriaolfNigeria,pp.89,93, paras.6.22-6.23,6.32.
22~ounter-~emoriaolfNigeria,p. 74,para.5.15,andpp.86-90,paras.6.15-6.26.fiarnework. In very general terms the arrangement has been described as a "federation or

conglomerationof loosely-knit to~ns"~~.Thereare numerous maps going back several centuries

which depict City States of Old Calabar. The Atlas accompanyingNigeria's Counter-Memorial

lists eightuch maps24,dated 1662,1729, 1750to 1772,1794, 1822,1871, 1879and 1888. There

is also copious other expert evidence testieing to the existence of Calabar as a well-established

Afncan polity: ittoo is set out in Nigeria's ~ounter-~ernorial~'. OldCalabar andthe City States

areno figmentof the imagination; they are no "myths" or "mirages"; there is no "mystery" about

them- unless, that is, al1these authoritative observers have beenin error - a suggestionwhich

not evenCameroonhasyet daredput forward.

21.These CityStatesof the Calabarregionmost certainlyexisted,and over time came toact

togetheras the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. By the time that European territorialinterestin

the region was becoming intense in the early and mid-nineteenth century, that entity had

crystallizedso as to bethe entitywithwhichtheyhadto deal.

22.And deal withit they did, Mr. President.The record demonstratesbeyondany doubtthe

range andquantity of the dealings between,onthe one hand, variousof the City States as well as

the Kingsand Chiefs collectively,and, on the other,GreatBritain. Thus as early as 1849a British

Consulwas appointed26.And fiom an even earlierdate the Kings andChiefs of Old Calabarwere

concludingtreaties with Great Britain - at least 17such treaties were concluded between 1823

and 1884". Mr. President and Membersof the Court, Great Britain has been accused of many

thingsbut never, untilnow, ofmakingtreatieswith"myths"!

23. Itwould be wrong to give the impressionthat it is only GreatBritain which concluded

treaties with "myths". A glance at the Consolidated TreaiySerieswill quickly show that France,

too, followedthe samepractice. As early as 1842,the King of Old Calabar ("LeRoi du Vien

Calebar '7,pending theanival inthe Old CalabarRiverof a Frenchwarshipto negotiate atreatyof

23~eeCounter-MernorialofNigeria,67,para.5.1.
24~ounter-~emorialofNigeria,AtlasmapsNos.16-22and13.

25~ounter-~emorialofNigeria,pp69-70paras.5.7-5.10.

26~ounter-~emorialof Nigeria,74,para5.14.
27~ounter-~emorialof Nigeria,p71-73para.5.12.commerceandfiiendship,undertookin writingtoprotect Frenchcommercialpersonnelandto treat

them as wellas the Britishwere being ~eated~~.

24. Mr.President, States and other international personsmay take many forms: forma1

written constitutions,andfiontiersdelimitedby agreement,arenot essential. The Court'sOpinion

inthe WesternSaharacasedemonstratedthat. Therecord shows clearlythatthe politicaland legal

personality of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar was fully recognized at that time. Their

territory was not terra nullius. And in particular, they concluded their treaties as full treaty

partners,onterms of legalequalitywiththe CO-contracting State.

25. It was on that basis that they concludedwith GreatBritain the very important treatiesof

protection in 1884 - first, two preliminary Treatiesof 23 and 24 July 1884, and then the main

Treaty concludedby the Kings andChiefs of Old Calabaron 10September.

26. Cameroon has chosen to treat these treaties only very sketchily. Perhaps Cameroon

believesthatthey do not matter. Butthey do matter,Mr.President. Indeed,they are of the utmost

importanceforthe legal consequencesflowing fiomthe Treatyof 1913,which we willcorneto in a

moment. They fonned the basis of the British protectorate over Nigeria,and thus establishedthe

limits of GreatBritain'spowers in relation to Nigeria. It isthose limits which madeit impossible

for GreatBritain lawfully to transferthe Nigeriantemtory ofthe BakassiPeninsulato Germany-

orindeedto anyone else.

27. Allow me, therefore, Mr.President, to spend a little time on the 1884 Treaties. In

practice, weneed only concentrateon the last ofthem, concludedon 10September. That was the

substantiveTreaty of Protection. Itcannotbe ignored,fortworeasons. ItunderminesCameroon's

whole thesisthat the Kingsand Chiefs did not have treaty-making capacity - it was every bit as

much of a treaty as were other treaties of protection which were cited by Cameroon. And it

specifies the terms of protection in a way completely inconsistent with the position which

Cameroon takes.

28. Before lookingmore closely at its terms, 1 should like to plant in the Court's mind a

single, crucial question. Itis this. Who conferred on Great Britain the authority to give away

-
28~onsolidatedTreatySeries,Vol. 93,p.476.Bakassi? And notjust "who?", but also when?and how? It is a question 1shall have occasionto

repeat manytimes.

29. But with that question firmlyin mind, let me now look at the Treaty of Protectionin

more detail. Letme lookfirstatwho wasboundby it.

30. On the one hand, Queen Victoria. On the other hand, the Kings and Chiefs of Old

Calabar. Their position is of considerable legalinteres- apart from anything else, it shows a

sophisticated approachto treaty-making authority. The party to the treaty was the Kings and

Chiefs of Old Calabar. But in neighbouringareas there were a nurnber of kings and chiefs who

were subjectto the authorityandjurisdiction ofOld Calabar. They,therefore,couldnot themselves

become direct parties to the Treaty of10 September 1884. But they had to be brought within its

scope. Soeach of them madea Declaration,in substantiallyidenticalterms, statingthat theywere

"subject tothe authority andjurisdictionof the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar", that they could

not, "therefore,make any Treaty with aforeignPower forourselves", but addingthat "any Treaty

the said Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar have made, or may hereafter make, is, and will be,

binding on us". Such Declarations weremadeby the Kingsand Chiefs of Tom Shot, theEfut and

the Idommbi.

31. Having establishedthat the Treatywas bindingon several of the local kings and chiefs

under the general paramountcy of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, now let us considerthe

temtorial scope of the Treaty. When reporting the Treaty and the Declarations to the British

Foreign Secretary,the British Consul,Hewett,refened totheDeclarationsin the followingterms:

"The Chiefs of Tom Shot country,of EfUt,thecountryabout theRio del Rey,
and of Idombi,the country aboutthe River Rumby,made declarationsthat they were
subjectto Old ~alabar."'~

32.Asthe map attab 9 inthejudges' foldersand nowon the screen shows,the RiverRumby

is well totheeast of Bakassi; andEfut coveredthe land "about the Rio del Rey", which waterway

is itself on the eastern side of the Bakassi Peninsula. The general area of the temtories of the

Kings and Chiefs of Tom Shot, Efut and Idommbiis also indicated on the map. Quite apartfrom

29~ounter-~emoriaolfNigeria,p.90,para.6.33: ernphasisadded.Bakassi being, as 1 have already shown,part of the dominions of the Kings and Chiefs of Old

Calabar,it is whollyclearthat the 1884TreatyincludedBakassiwithinits geographical scope.

33. Letme now tum to anotheraspect ofthe Treaty ofProtection: what were its substantive

provisions? They are brief, and1need only citethe first two articles: their text is at tab 10in the

judges' foldersandalso, for convenience,on thescreen:

"Article 1. Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireiand, &c, in
compliance withthe request ofthe Kings, Chiefs, and people of Old Calabar,hereby
undertalcesto extendto them,andto thetemtory undertheir authorityandjurisdiction,
her graciousfavourand protection.

Article II. The Kings and Chiefs ofOld Calabaragree and promise to refrain
from enteringinto any correspondence,Agreement,or Treaty with any foreignnation
or Power, except with the knowledge and sanction of Her Britannic Majesty's
Goverr~ment.~'~~

34. Before looking at the terms of these articles more closely, it is importantto emphasize

it in terms describes itself as such. It is in classic contractual
two things. First, this is a treaty:

form, with GreatBritain offering one thing, in retum for which the Nigerian party undertook

another. TheCO-contracting partieswere internationalpersons,equal in law; theywere manifestly

agreeing to certain dispositions within the framework of international law. GreatBritain's

domestic legislationconsistently regarded the Treaty of Protectionas a "t~-eaty"~'.In short,this

was an internationaltreaty in the fullenseofthatterm.

35. The secondthing to emphasizeis that, as a treaty, it mustbe consideredand assessed in

the light of itsparticular terms, somethingwhich Carneroonshows amarkedreluctanceto do.

36. Cameroon'sposition can be summedup in four propositions: first, internationallaw

knows only international protectorates and colonial protectorates; second, the so-called

international protectoratesare those like Bhutan, Sikkim, French Indo-China; third, by contrast,

Nigeria was only a colonial protectorate; and fourth, in a colonialprotectoratethe protected State

becomes virtually a colony of the protecting State,which therefore has sovereignrights over it,

including the rightto disposeof itstemtory.

37. Suchan analysisis interesting,but,in so far as it isnot wrong,it is irrelevant.

30~hefull textisatCounter-MernoaflNigeria,Annex23,read inconjuncwithAnnex16.
3'~ounter-~emoriaolfNigeria,p. 111,para.6.66; pp. 165-166,paras.8.46-8.48.(a) It is not international law which knows those two categories of protectorates, but some

commentatorson international law; what international law knowsis particular protectorate

relationships, establishedbyparticulartreaties.

(3) Theposition ofBhutan, Sikkim,FrenchIndo-Chinaand other protected,or formerlyprotected,

States is very interesting, but this case is about the Nigeria Protectorate, establishedby the

Treatyof 1884.

(c) Even by Carneroon's criteria, the Nigeria Protectorate was an international protectorate,

having been established by a treaty concluded between twoexisting international persons

whereby the one, without losingits identity, placed itself under the protection of the other.

Great Britain dealt with the Nigeria Protectorate under British legislation which was

appropriate, by its very terms, for the exerciseof British jurisdiction in foreign states3'.

British Ministerswere absolutely clearthat they werenot takingon anothercolony,but only a

protectorate33; and ConsulHewett was himself well aware of the distinction between the

two - he wroteto King Ja Ja of Opobo,who askedwhat "protection"meant, that the British

Queen "under[takes] to extend her ... protection, which will leave your country still under

your~overnment"~~.

(d) Finally, since Great Britain was expressly and intentionally acquiring only certain limited

rights of protection over the Nigerian Protectorate, and no way annexing it or acquiring

colonial sovereignty over it, Great Britain was not thereby acquiring any sovereign right to

disposeofterritory.

38. No general notion of "protectorate" developed bywriters is sufficient to define the

content of particularrelationshipsof protection. We have a specificTreaty of Protection,and the

kind of protection relationshipwhich it establishes as between Nigeriaand Great Britaindepends

only on the particular terms of that treaty: not on the terms of any other treaty, but solely and

exclusivelyon theterms of the Treaty of 1884.

32~ounter-~emoriaolf Nigeria, pp. 117p,aras.6.72-6.84;RejoinderofNigeria,pp. 19-20,paras.1.38-1.39.

33~ounter-~emoriaolf Nigeria,p. 106,para.6.55(LordChancellorSelbome).
34~ounter-~emorialfNigeria, pp.107-108,para.6.59. 39. It was the Permanent Court ofInternational Justice, in its 1923Advisory Opinion on

NationalityDecreesIssuedinTunisand Morocco,whichsaidthat

"The extent of the powersof aprotecting Statedepends,first, uponthe Treaties

betweenthe protecting Stateand the protected Stateestablishingthe Protectorate .. .
In spite of common featurespossessedby Protectoratesunder internationallaw, they
have individuallegal characteristicsresulting fiomthe specialconditionsunder which
theywere created .. ."35

40. Onemust,therefore,lookcarefullyat what the 1884Treatyof Protectionsaid. Andhere

let me remind the Courtof the crucialquestionwhich 1putearlier: who conferredon GreatBritain

the authorityto giveaway Balcassi?And when? And how?

41.The Treatysaid, first,that GreatBritainwould extendits "protection"to Old Calabarand

the othertenitories to which the Treaty applied. And it said, second,that for itspart Old Calabar

would refrain from having dealings with foreign States without Britain's knowledgeand

permission. And so far as is relevantfor ourpresent purposes,that is al1it said. The Treatysaid

nothing about Britainbeing giventhe powerto dispose of Old Calabar'stemtory; it saidnothing

about Britain havingsovereignrights in respectof Old Calabar; it saidnothing, even,aboutGreat

Britain exercising the international relations ofOld Calabar- indeed, it specifically left those

relations stillto be conductedby Old Calabar,only requiringthat the Kings and Chiefs shouldnot

enter into any correspondenceor agreement with foreign nations withoutBritain'sknowledgeand

permission.

42.The Treatyof 1884thusleft intactmost of therightsandpowers of theKings andChiefs

of Old Calabar. Theyretainedtheir international personality and their sovereignty, subject onlyto

the limited contractualconstraintsupontheirrights set out inthetermsof the Treaty.

43. In that respect a comparisonwith this Court's decisionin the case concerningRightsof

Nationalsof the UnitedStatesofAmericain~orocco~~is instructive. There the Court hadto deal

with the position under the FrenchProtectorateover Morocco. The Protectorate Treatyof Fez of

1912- "an arrangementof a contractualcharacter" asthe Court calledit - wascharacterizedby

the Court as an arrangement "whereby Franceundertook to exercise certain sovereignpowers in

''P.c.I.SeriesB,No. 4, p.27. Thefullquotais atCounter-MemorioaflNigeria,page108,paragrh.62.
36..J .eports1952,p.76.the name and on behalf of Morocco, and, in principle, al1 of the international relations of

MO~OCCO~'~~.

44.Yet, despitethat extensive attributionto Franceof powers andrights over and in relation

to Morocco, the Courtstill held the view that "Under this Treaty, Morocco remained a sovereign

State", andthe Courtnoted that France itself had"not disputed ... that Morocco, even underthe

Protectorate,has retained its personality as a State in internationallawV3*.Therecm, in Nigeria's

submission,be no doubtthat Old Calabar'sposition under the much less onerousTreaty of 1884

with GreatBntain waseven morefirmly thatof continuing sovereignstatus.

45. One can lookalso at the situationfiom the opposite perspective - not "what rightsdid

Old Calabargive up to Great Britain?", but "whatrights did Great Britaingainfrom the Treaty?'.

But the answer is to the same broad effect. The rights given up were, as we have seen, both

specific,and limited. In the context of protection,the rights acquiredwere similarly specific and

limited- narnely, the right for Great Britainto extend to Old CalabarBritain's "gracious favour

and protection". Indeedthat wasan obligationas much asa right.

46.It is the word "protection" whichneeds emphasizing. GreatBritain was undertaking to

protect Old Calabar, not to invade it, absorb it, plunder it, or dismember it. "Protection",

Mr. President and Members ofthe Court, requires that the interests of the protected person be

lookedafter; "the conceptof a Protectorate involvesconsiderations ofgood faith,trust anda duty

to act in the interestsof the protectedtat te"^If those interests are dissipated,then the protected

person is neither granted any "favour" nor any "protection". A grant of authority to alienate

temtoy needs clear language,and any arguablyrelevantlanguageisto be interpreted restrictively.

"Protection" does not meet those requirements: rather, it precludes the unauthorized givingaway

of theterritorywhichwas to beprotected.

47.That Treatyof Protectionof 1884 was the originof Britain'sactions in relation to much

of Nigeria for more than three quarters of a century- until, in fact, Nigeria's attainment of

independence in 1960. Under its domestic powers for dealing with temtories which were under

99, paragrap6.42. p. 1A8fuller quotationfiorn the Court'sJudgmentis at Counter-Mernorial of Nigeria,pages98 to

''1bid.
39~ounter-~emorialofNigeria,p. 162,para.8.39.British protection, Great Britain over the years enacted a series of Orders in Council making

provision for the organization and exerciseof Britishjurisdiction in the Nigeria Protectorate. By

one of these the temtory of Bakassifell withinthe boundariesof what at the time constitutedthe

Protectorateof SouthernNigeria. 9

48. Inits essentialsthat positiondid not change beforethe conclusionof the Anglo-German

Treaty of March 1913; and it is Nigeria's submissionthat it in no way changed as a result of that

Treaty,norindeed diditchange in substance untilNigeria became independent.

49.Before concludingthis sectionof myspeech aboutthe Protectorate,1shouldrecall that it

was not onlyin what isnow Nigeria that a protectoratewasestablished. The samehappenedinthe

neighbouringterritory, of what is now Cameroon. There the protecting State was Germany. The

GermanProtectoratewasestablishedin 1884,the sameyear asthe BritishProtectorate.

50.Two things are significantabout the arrangementsmade by Germany. In the first place,

the two local chiefs- Kings Akwa and Bell- placed themselves very filly under Germany's

authority. They assigned their rights of sovereignty, legislation and administration over their

temtory. This contrastswith the very different, and much more limited, arrangements made by

Great Britainwith the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar: they made Germany's relationshipwith

Cameroon close to that of a colony,rather than to the clear protectorate arrangementsbetween

GreatBritainand Oldcalabar4'.

51. Secondly, Kings Akwa and Bell had quite limited tenitories. They were precisely

identified in the agreement: it was "the country called Cameroun situated along the River

Cameroon,between the River Bimbiain the North and Kwakwa in the South, and up to 4' 10'N

latitude7*'.This did notcover the whole of Cameroon,but ineffect onlythe area inhabitedby the

people ofDouala, whichwas the onlyarea subjectto the authority ofthetwo Kings. On the screen

now and at tab 11 of the judges' folders, you can see this area, showing in particular the River

Bimbiaandthe parallel4" 10'N latitude. It is clearthat thewhole ofthisarea lay wellto the south

of the tenitories of theKings and Chiefsof Old Calabar, and in particular of the Rio del Rey, the

mouth ofwhich is at approximately4' 30' N.

40~ounter-~emorilfNigeria,pp. 81-83,paras.6.4-6.8.
41~ounter-~emorilfNigeria,Ann.19. 52. The focusof Britishactivity inthis area was at the mouth of the Old CalabarRiver and

the various settlements ofOldCalabar- which, aswe have seen,includedBakassi. Thefocus of

Germanactivity lay furtherto the east, at the mouth of the CameroonRiver and the neighbouring

Cameroonsettlements. It was inevitablethat there arose differencesover the limits of theareas in

whichGreat Britainand Germanyhad acquiredadegreeof authority.

53. As earlyas the year after the conclusionof the 1884agreementsthere was talk between

GreatBritain andGermanyof adoptingtheRio del Rey as the dividing line42.Britain offeredsuch

a line in 1885. Germanycountered by seekingto extend its Cameroonpossessions as farWestas

the Calabar River (partof the river networkcomprisingalso the Cross Riverand the AkpaYafe).

Britaincould notagree.

54. That exchangeestablishedthebroad fiameworkfor muchof the negotiationswhich were

to follow. Britainwas willingto give up intereststo the east of the Rio del Rey. Germany,while

ready to advance to the Rio del Rey, wanted to go even further,to the Cross River estuary. In

between,of course,lay Bakassi.

55. In 1885 there was an Anglo-German Exchange of Notes which settled a line of

separationbetweenBritishandGermanactivitiesinthe area43.Andthe lineagreedbeganalongthe

Rio delRey and then followeda definedcourseintotheinterior,via a point onthe CrossRiver.

56. The ExchangeofNotes had nothingto do with territorial sovereignty. Its line separated

what the text referred to as "spheres of influence". In doing so it did no morethan establishfor

eachStatea fieedomto actwithinthe geographicallimitslaid downfor it, anda prohibition against

actingwithin the limits laid down for the other State. The line agreedwas, in effect, essentially a

line ofmutual forbearance,or non-encroachment,forthe purpose of promoting the two countries'

tradinginterests. As part ofthe agreement, Germanyengaged notto make acquisitionsto the west

oftheRio del Rey.

57. That ExchangeofNotes tooktheline of separationa certain distanceinto the interior,the

following year - 1896- the two Statesconcluded another Exchange of Notes by which they

42~ounter-~emoriaolfNigeria,pp. 129-130,paras.7.2-7.3.
43~ounter-~emoriaolfNigeria,pp. 130-134,paras.7.5-7.12.extendedthe earlierline evenfurtherintotheinteri~r~~I .n doingsothey repeatedthat thelinewent

up the Rio del Rey, and againmade clearthat they were onlytalking about spheres of action or

influence.

58. There then arose a problem. It was discovered that there was no Rio del Rey- or
t
rather, no river ofthat name with a distinct sourcewhich could be linkedup with the CrossRiver.

The difficultywasovercomeby the Berlin Treaty of 1890. ArticleIV adopted"a provisionalline

of demarcation . ..betweentheGermansphere inthe Cameroons andthe adjoiningBritishsphere".

This line started at the "head of' the Rio del Rey Creek. Thisprovision has to be read with

ArticleVII, which stipulatedthat the two Stateswould not "interferewith any sphere of influence

assignedto the otherby Article ... IV [theone 1just referred to.. ."45.Thus once againthe Rio

del Rey was confirmed as the line of separation, and once again it was confirmed that the

separationwas between spheresof influence,not temtorial sovereignty; and once againGermany

undertooknot tomakeacquisitionsin theBritishsphere.

59. By a furtheragreementconcludedin 1893the two States specified what theyhadmeant

in the 1890Treaty by the reference to "the head of the Rio del Rey CreeyA6. Once more,

therefore, they were confiming the Rio del Rey line, in a context which was expressly

trade-related.

60. In a further Anglo-Germanagreement concluded later the same year, the two States

implicitly reaffixmedthe Rio del Rey line which they had previously agreed,and expressly

repeated that the delimitation was one "between the temtories under the influenceof their

respective ~overnments"~'.

61. And at that point the agreementsbetween GreatBritain and Germany relevantto the

BakassiPeninsula come to an end, until theTreaty of March1913. There were, it is true,various

reports made to the two Govemmentsin the interveningyears, andvarious proposals made, and

even anagreementsigned in 1909,which envisaged movingthe boundaryfiomthe Rio delRey to

44~ounter-~emoriaolfNigeria,pp. 134-135,paras.7.13-7.19.
45~ounter-~emoriaolfNigeria,pp.136-137,paras.7.22-7.24.

46~ounter-~emoriaolf Nigeria,pp. 138-140,paras.7.26-7.30.
47~ounter-~emoriaolfNigeria,pp. 140-141,paras.7.31-7.33:emphasis added. - 53 -

a new location along the Akwayafe River,to the west of ~akassi~*.But they were just "reports",

and "proposals", and even the signed agreement was only signed as a text recornmended for

approval by the two Governments, and in the event, for reasons of real substance, it was not

approved: so itnever entered into force.

62. 1 emphasize that point, because Cameroon has sought to attach legal weightto those

events, asserting that they "acknowledged" that Bakassi was under German jurisdiction, and

showed that "the local British and GermanAuthoritiesin Nigeria and Carneroonhad agreedthat

the fiontier was to reach the coast at the mouth of the River Akwayafe", and that "it can be said

without hesitation that, since 1901, the Governrnents concemed both considered thatthe River

Akwayafe represented the fr~ntier'"'~. Far from these propositions being accepted "without

hesitation", theycal1for the utmost hesitation. As a fact, the two Govemments did not reach

agreementon thosematters. And in law, nomere proposalsor reports,no agreementswhich have

not enteredinto force,can be heldto constitutean acknowledgrnentof, or agreementto, whateverit

is that is beingproposed. Whatthe local officials inNigeria andCameroonmay have agreed was,

when referredbackto these capitals,notapprovedbytheir Governrnents.

63. The net result oftheseearlier attemptsto negotiate a separationbetween Cameroonand

Nigeria was that,by 1913, nothing hadbeen changed,and that the boundary betweenthe British

and Germanspheresof influence continuedto lie alongthe Rio delRey, to the east of the Bakassi

Peninsula: indeed,the Rio delRey was the recognizedwestwardlimit of the GermanProtectorate

of Kamerun,and Germanyhadundertakento respect theRio delRey as the boundaryandto make

no acquisitionsto the Westof it. That waterway is againbeing pointed out toyou, this time on a

modem map,whichis on the screennow andat tab 12inthejudges7folders.

TheAnglo-German Treaty of11March1913

64. That was the positionwhen the two Statesmade whatwas to prove their last attemptto

settlethe boundary betweenCarneroonandNigeria,bythe Treaty of 1 1March 1913.

48~ounter-~emorialofNigeria,p145-151paras.8.1-8.13.
49~emorial of Cameroon, para2.88, 4.282and 4.300: see Counter-Memorial of Nigeria,p152-153,
paras.8.15-8.16. 65.Taken at facevalue, itis quite a simpletreaty. It,in effect, delimits aboundarybetween

the two countries. It does so in 22 nurnberedArticles. We can ignore for present purposes

Articles1 to XVII: they delimit the boundary in a series of sections southwards and

southwestwardsfromYola, farintothe interior, anddo not relateto the boundary inthe areawhich

we arenow considering.

66.ArticlesXVIIIto XXIIare,however,a different matter. They continuethe boundaryline

after the point whichit had reached atthe endof Article XVII,the text of whichis at tab 13in the

judges' foldersalongwith the textof ArticleXVIII. ArticleXVIItook the boundarydownto

"a pillar on the bank of the River Akpakorum about 213rds of a mile (1 kilom)
downstream fromthe point where the Ekonako-Ekongroad crosses the Akpakorum,
and thence by the shortestline to the thalweg ofthe River Akpakorum,known in its
lowerreachesas the Akwayafe(Akwajafe)".

67. Those locations are being show to you on the map whichis now on the screen and at

tab 14inthejudges' folders.

68. So far, so good. It is the next following Articles which create the problem. For

Article XVIII provides that fiom there on, the boundary "follows the thalweg of the Akpakorum

(Akwayafe) River. ..[and] then follows the thalweg of the Akwayafe as far as a straight line

joining Bakassi Pointand King Point".

69. The line of the AkwayafeRiver, down to BakassiPoint and King Point, is being shown

to you onthe screen.

70. Mr. President, it is immediately apparent that the boundary as it results fiom

Articles XVIII to XXII of the 1913Treaty has the purported effect of redrawing the eastern

boundary of the Protectorate of Southem Nigeria in such a way that the boundary betweenthe

Protectorate and Cameroon runs not along the Rio delRey to the east of Bakassi, but along the

Akwayafeto the west of Bakassi: the effectisthus to attributetheBakassi Peninsulato Germany.

71. Andthat, Mr. President, Membersof the Court, isjust the problem. Again 1must pose

the crucial question. What possible authoritydid Great Britain have to give away the Bakassi

Peninsulato Germany?

72. Did Great Britain itself have sovereignty over Bakassi? Nowhereis that suggested. It

certainly does not flow from the 1884Treaty. That Treaty gave Great Britain only a limitedherselfto purport to give awayterritory over which she did not have sovereignty,and which she

had no other authority to give away. In doing so Great Britain acted wholly in excess of any

powerswhichshehad; thepurportedalienationofBakassiwas an ultra vireas ct on GreatBritain's

part. As such it was wholly ineffectivein law to achievethetransfer of temtory which itpurported

to effect. No otherconclusion,Mr.President,is inNigeria'ssubmissiontenable.

77. So far, we have considered Great Britain's conduct in terms of its authority, or rather

lack of authority,to act as it did. But there are other aspectsof theatter which should not be

ignored.

78. Thus, not only did the 1884Treaty of Protectionnot give Great Britain the power to

transferOld Calabar's temtory to someother State,butthatTreaty also imposed certain obligations

upon Great Britain. Foremost amongthese was the dutyassurnedby GreatBritain toprotect Old

Calabar. For GreatBritain thento purportto give awayOldCalabar's temtoryamountedto a clear

breachof its obligation to afford"protection"to OldCalabar. Great Britaincannot by its wrongful

act acquire for itself additional rights which it did not otherwise possess, such as the right to

alienatetemtory.

79.Moreover,as explained inNigeria's~ounter-~emorial~~t,he practiceof bothBritain and

Germanyat the time was suchas to establishtwo propositions. First, in a protectorate any transfer

of territorialsovereignty wasnot a matter for the protectingState, but a matter for the local ruler,

who retainedterritorial sovereigntyand should be compensatedfor any cession ofhis temtory to

whichhe might agree; and second,when a transfer oftemtory is made, provision is made for the

futurecareof the inhabitantsofthetemtory.

80. Furthemore, there is in the record of this case clear evidence that Germany

acknowledged and understood that the 1913Treaty was not concemed with the acquisition or

cessionof temtory: the wordsused by the State Secretaryof the German Imperia1ColonialOffice

in April191 3- just a month afier the conclusionof the Treaty - were that the 1913 Treaty was

not concemed with"the acquisitionor assignrnentofpartsof aprotectorate"54.

S3~ounter-~emoriaolfNigeria,pp.166-10,ras8.49-8.51.
"~ounter-Memonao l fNigeria,pp.164-15,ra8..45. 81. Seen as a whole, the transaction in the Anglo-GermanTreaty of 1913 whereby Great

Britainpurported to transfer Bakassi to Germany would, if it were allowed to be effective to

achievethat result,have the following characteristics:

(a) it would be contrary tothe nature andterms of Great Britain's1884Treaty of Protectionwith

the KingsandChiefs of OldCalabar;

(6) it would be contraryto thetemtorial rights oftheKings andChiefsof OldCalabar;

(c) it would be contrary to the interestsofthe inhabitantsof Bakassi;

(4 it would be contrary to the financialinterests of the title-holders of Old Calabar who should

have beencompensated;

(e) it would be contrary totherecognizedestwardlimit of the GermanProtectorate;

@ it would be contrary to earlier undertakingsby Germany to respect the Rio del Reyas the

boundary andto make no acquisitionsWestof it; and

(' it would be contrary toGermany'sacknowledgmentand understanding thatthe treatywas not

concemed with the acquisition or cession of territory- the protection and promotion of

trading interestswerethe motivationforthe agreement,nottemtorial transfers.

82. No treaty,Mr. President,and Members of the Court, which encowters such a litany of

defectscan possiblybe givenfull legalweightand effect.

83. Which then presents a problem: what are the consequences of such ineffective

provisions?

84. The fust is clear. As the Islandof Palmascase expressly showed, Germanycould not

have acquired fiom Great Britain any better title than Great Britain herself possessed. And

thereforeGermanycouldhaveacquired agood titletoBakassi by virtue of the 1913Treatyonly if,

in 1913, Great Britain hadhad a good title herself. But Great Britain hadno title whatsoeverto

territorialsovereigntyoverBakassi.

85. The second consequence is equally clear. Great Britain, having concluded the

1884Treaty withthe Kings and ChiefsofOld Calabar,remainedbound by that treaty. As a treaty,

that 1884Treaty was as much subjectto the principlepacta suntsewanda as any othertreaty. A

latertreaty concludedby GreatBritain with a thirdParty, such as the 1913Treaty concludedwith

Germany, could not detract fiom the legal force of Great Britain's 1884Treaty with Old Calabar.And GreatBritainrecognizedthis: in Ordersin Councilmade inrespect of the Nigeria Protectorate

both before andafter the 1913Anglo-GermanTreaty, Great Britaindemonstratedits intentionnot

to affectthe rightssecuredby the Kings andChiefsand peoplesof Old Calabarby the 1884Treaty,

to continueto be boundby al1pledges in thattreaty, andto maintainit "operativeand in force"55.
3
86. The third consequence is also clear: the offending treaty provisionscannot be given

legaleffectwhich their termswould purportto have. In short, the boundary purportedlylaiddown

by thosedefectiveprovisionsmustbe disregarded.

87. That does not mean, however, that the Treaty of 1913 must be regarded as wholly

without legal effect. There is, Mr. President, nothing wrong with Articles 1 to XVII: they are

untainted by the defect which deprives ArticlesXVIII to XXIIof their purported effects. The

earlierarticles canperfectly wellcontinueinfull forceand effect,and in Nigeria'ssubmissionthey

do so. They are self-standing provisions, andtheir application is in no way dependent upon the

defectiveArticlesXVIII to XXII.

88.Those lastfive boundaryarticles - what maybe called"the Bakassi provisions" - are a

differentmatter. They are the Articles whichpurport to effect a cessionwhich Great Britainwas

withoutlegal powerto grant. Theymust bestnick fromtheTreaty,and lefiaside.

89. Such severanceof treaty provisionsis permissiblein internationallaw. Article44 of the

ViennaConvention on the Law of Treatiesmay be taken as representingthe law in this matter, in

1913 as much as today. Paragraph3 of thatArticle clearlyand expresslypermitsthe severanceof

treatyprovisions56.It requiresthat three conditionsbe metbeforetreaty provisionscan be severed.

Al1threeare satisfied-

(a) there is no difficulty at al1 in applying the Treaty of March 1913 minus its "Bakassi

provisions";

(b) there is nothing to suggestthat the offending Articleshad any special quality about them-

they were five among a total of 30 Articles,the boundarybeingdelimitedin 22 of them,none

of which was of greater significancethan the others: the "Bakassi provisions" were not the

quidpro quofor somestipulationelsewherein the Treaty; and

SS~ounter-~emoria olfNigeri, p. 165-166,paras.8.46-8.48.
56~ejoindeofNigeria,pp.35-37,paras.1.70-1.72.(c) there is nothing unjust in treating Articles1 to XVII and XXIII to XXX ascontinuing to

govem the boundary, since bothparties havein practicecontinuedto benefit equallyfiom the

certainty and stabilitywhich resultrom the long-establishedobservance of those remaining

provisions- the injustice wouldlie in ignoringthe inevitableconsequences of the nemodat

principle.

90. The severability of defective treaty provisions must, however, be seen in its proper

context. It is only a secondary, consequential,matter. The primary matter is the substantive

unlawfulness ofthe treatyprovisions. Giventhattreaty provisionsare unlawful- andNigeriahas

shown that GreatBritain had no authoritywhatsoeverto giveBakassi to Germany - the question

of severability concems what then to do about that primary conclusion. Ultra virep srovisions

cannot just be left as they stand; severabilityis simply one of the means whereby the proper

consequences attending the finding of unlawfulness can be addressed. Nigeria- as well as

Cameroon- has no wishto see thewhole 1913Treaty broughtto an end: both parties accept,and

have in practice observed, and have benefited fiom, the non-defective boundary delimitation

articles in thatTreaty. Severanceis,inNigeria's submission,theappropriateconsequentialremedy

inthe presentsituation.

91. With the "Bakassi provision^'ineffective, and in effect discarded, the boundary

prescribed by the Anglo-German Treaty of March 1913 ends with the final stipulation of

Article XVII. This providesthat the boundarygoes, in the manner described in the Article,to the

thalweg of the River Akpakorum. The location of that terminal point prescribed by the

1913Treatywill be dealtwith later,inthe contextof the landboundary. Itis sufficienthere to Say

that to the north of that terminal pointthe boundarycontinuesto be the treaty-basedboundary laid

down in the 1913Treaty; but to the south of thatpoint the boundary hasno treaty basis, and falls

to be determinedon othergrounds.

The administrationofBakassi, 1913-1960

92. Letme now turn, Mr. President andMembers of theCourt, to what happened afterthat

Treaty was concludedin 1913. In doingso, may 1recall the question which 1keep puttingbefore

you: Who conferredon Great Britainthe authorityto give away Bakassi? And not just "who?",butalso when? and how? Nigeriahasshownthat nothinginthe 1884Treatyof Protectiondid so,

noranythingelsein the periodup to 1913.

93. Just over a year after the Treaty of March 1913 was concludedthe First World War

brokeout. TheGerman tenitory of Cameroon wasoccupiedbyBritish,Frenchand Belgianforces.

Thatoccupationwascompleteby May 1916.

94. Thefirstquestionwhichhasto be askediswhethertheGerman authoritiesin Carneroon

didanythingbetweenMarch1913andMay 1916to putthe 1913 Treaiyintoeffect inBakassi: did

theyphysicallyoccupyoradrninisterBakassiin anyway duringthat period?

95. Cameroonhasproducedno evidenceto thateffect. Wewere toldthatthe Treatytext was

publishedlocally by Germanyb , ut that scarcelyconstitutesaeflectivitin relation specifically to

Bakassi. Theweight of such evidence as there is strongly suggests that therewas no German

occupation or administrationof Bakassi, and no significantpattern of German activities there

duringthis initialperiod57.

96. Hadtherebeen anyattemptby Germanyto move intothe area, anddisruptorchangethe

traditionalties between the population of Bakassindthe Kingsand Chiefsof Old Calabar,such a

movewouldhavemet withlively opposition. Thereis no evidenceof anyprotestsin thatsensein

the period fiom 1913 to 1916. Ratherthan any German takeover,it seemsthat the authority in

Bakassiof the Kings andChiefs ofOldCalabar,andof the developingNigerianregionaland local

governmentstructuresoftheNigerianProtectorate,continueduninterrupted.

97. The outbreak of war with Germanyin August 1914made it impossible thereafter for

Germany to seek to implement any provisions of the 1913Treaty which remained to be

implemented. In any event, not only did Germanyby Article119 of the Treaty of Versailles

renouncein favourof the Allied Powers"al1her rights and titlesover her overseaspossessions",

but as a result of Article 289 the 1913Treaty was and remained abrogated5'. Carneroon

accordinglycouldnot, in 1960, haveacceded tothe 1913 Treatyitself - and although a lawful

boundary established by a treaty survives as a boundaq, so far as concems the "Bakassi

"~ounter-MernoriaolfNigeria,p177180,paras.9.3-9.4.
58~ounter-~emoriaolfNigeria,p. 170,para.8.53; p. 181,para.9.8.provisions"ofthe 191 3 Treatythere wasno lawfil boundarywhich couldsurvivethe abrogationof

theTreaty .

98. The military occupation by Britain of the western part of German Cameroon led to

British administrationof thatarea, followedby its continued administrationby Britainursuantto

theTreaty of Versailles,thenunder the British Mandateof 1922until afierthe Second WorldWar,

and then under the United Nations Trusteeship Agreement of 1946. These changing British

administrative roles occurred in parallel with developments in the forms of British-organized

administrationin the neighbouringNigerian Protectorate. Throughout al1these various changes,

the fact is that administrative, legal and other ties between Bakassi and the rest of Nigeria

continued unbroken and unintempted until Nigeria's independencein 1960 and thereafier.

Effective authoritycontinuedto be exercisedby thetraditionalsource of powerand authorityinthe

Peninsula, narnely by the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar- now, of course, the Obongsof

Calabar.

99. Cameroonhas sought to erect a theoreticalbamer to these practical arrangements. The

argument appearsto be asfollows: sinceBakassiwaspart ofGerman Cameroon,thereforeit must

be regarded as foming part of the British Mandated,later Trusteeship,tenitories and not part of

theNigerian Protectorate; and consequently,Britishacts of administrationwere performednot as

partof the administrationofNigeriabut as part ofBritain'sMandate or Trusteeship administration,

andthereforewhen, later,the southem part of the British TrustTemtoq chose to become partof

Cameroon, thatpart includedBakassi.

100. The argument is misconceived. For a start, its premise is wrong: Bakassi was not

German tenitory, eitherunderthe 1913Treaty or on any otherbasis. Forhere we must go backto

thecrucialquestion: Who confened on GreatBritainthe authonty to give away Bakassi? Andnot

just "who?",but also when? and how? It is not enough,in law,to assumethat, simplybecausethe

1913Treaty provided for Bakassito be given to Germany, thatwas therefore enoughto give Great

Britain the authority to do so. As of 1913the only answer to that question is, nobody had given

GreatBritainthe necessary authority.

101.Andthat answerunderminesCameroon'swhole subsequent case. For if the necessary

authority had not been conferredupon Great Britain by some identifiable person and process, atsomeidentifiabletime, by 1913,it is dificult to see how else it could have happened: if Bakassi

wasstillpart of theNigerian Protectorateatthe endof 1913-as it must have beenif the principle

nemodat quod nonhabetmeans anything - it must inlaw have continuedin that position for as

long asthe Protectoratelasted.

102.Overthe followingyearswe maydistinguishfour separateperiods.

(a) First, during the First World War Great Britain was a belligerent occupant of Gennan

temtory ;

(b) second,duringthe period betweentheend of the War andthe beginningof the Mandate,Great

Britainhad transitional administrativepowers underthe Treatyof Versailles;

(c) third, fiom 1922to 1947Britain administeredpart ofCameroonsunderthe Mandate;

(4 fourth, from 1947to 1961, Britain continuedits administrationof the British Cameroons,but

now as the AdministratingAuthorityunderthe TrusteeshipAgreement.

103.Al1ofthose four periodshavetwo featuresin cornmon. Throughoutal1the four periods

the 1884Treaty of Protectionwas still in force and still bindingupon GreatBritain: so at no time

duringthose penods did Great Britainhave the legal authorityto give away Bakassi - not after

1914,not after 1919,not after 1922,and notafter 1947.

104. The second feature which those four periods sharedwas that Great Britain's authority

over the neighbouring strip of fonnerly German Kamerun was limited. Whether as belligerent

occupant,or as the transitional administering authority,or as the Mandatory authority,or as the

AdministeringAuthorityunderthe TnisteeshipAgreement, GreatBritainwas without any authority

unilaterally to alter, whether by subtraction or addition, "the territorial configuration" of the

temtory it was administering. Counsel for Cameroon expressly acceptedthis in relation to the

an date^': there can be no reason to doubt that the same applies to Great Britain's other

administrativecapacities.
i

105. It thus follows that throughoutthose periods Great Britain was neither competent, as
\
Protecting State, to give away Bakassi, nor competent, as the State administering part of

neighbouring Cameroons,to acquire it. Since Bakassi could not, as Nigeria has shown, legally

5 9 ~200214,pp.22-23,para1 (Shaw).have becomepart of GermanKamerunin 1913,it equallycould not lawfully have become part of

Cameroons during anyofthe subsequentperiods.

106.To reach any other conclusion requires avery specific answer to the crucial question

which 1haveset out anumberof times: Whoconferredon Great Britainthe authorityto giveaway

Bakassi? And when? And how? Nigeria's answeris clear: 'Wobody",and "Never". Cameroon,

onthe other hand, has notbegun to answerthat questionwiththe necessarydetailedexaminationof

the legalposition. It isirnplya questionwhich Cameroonsubmergesunder a seaof silence.

107. Cameroon has dwelt at length6'on the limited authority of MandatoryPowers and

Trusteeship Adrninistering Authorities. Nigeria has no quarrel with this part of Cameroon's

analysis. Butit doesnotanswerthe question. Beforethoselimitsto territorialauthoritycan in any

way be relevant, it hasto be shownthat Bakassi waspart of the Mandateor Trusteeshipterritories.

Cameroonasserts ittobe so, butrefrains fiom arguing it, let aloneproving it. Beforebeing ableto

concludethatBakassibecame Germanin 1913,andthusbecamepartofthe territorialchain leading

to theMandateand Trusteeshipperiods,Cameroonmust showon whatlegal basisthat cameabout.

Nigeria hasshown that, on the basis of the specific termsof the 1884Treaty of Protection, there

could have been no legal basis for Great Britainto give Bakassi away. Cameroon has signally

failedto show, precisely, in whatwayNigeria'sargumentmight be wrong.

108. Without a satisfactory answer to that question, it is clear that no amount of British

activity in relation to Bakassi in the Mandate or Trusteeship periodscan, in law, have severed

Bakassi fiom the Nigeria Protectorate. First, Britishactivity must have continued to relate to

Bakassias part of the Nigeria Protectorate- forby what legal meanshad it ever ceased to have

that status? Second,evenif Britishofficialson somefewoccasionsmayhave actedas though they

thoughtthat Bakassi waspart of the mandated temtory, that would not have been enough in lawto

make it so. The Treatyof Protectionwas stillin forceas a limit on Britain'sauthorityas protecting

State to give away Bakassi,and no amount of "thinking" on Britain'spart would be sufficientto

amend that Treaty; and the limits on Britain's authority under the Mandate and Trusteeship

Agreements precluded Britain fiom accepting or effecting any variation of the temtory's

6 0 200214pp.18-27: Ntamark,Shaw.boundarieswithoutthe approval ofthe appropriateintemationalsupervisoryauthority- and there

wasnone.

109. Britain itself, of course, as a party to the 1913 Treaty, was likely to act on the

assumptionthatthat Treatyhad determinedthe boundarybetweenthe Protectorate andwhat wasto -

be the British Cameroons. But assumption, or belief, is not a basis for legal title; no amount of

British believingthat Bakassiwas inBritish Cameroonswouldbe enoughto make it so in law; no

amountof mistakenbelief couldretrospectivelymakegood GreatBritain'slack ofauthorityto give

away Bakassi; no amount of mistaken belief could give Britain a power which the Treaty of

Protection had clearly not given it. AI1Britain's actionsin the Mandate and Trusteeship periods

which assumed the alienation of Bakassi from the Protectorate or which might be construed as

havingthat resultwere tainted in that way. Thisapplieswhether theywere acts of bureaucracy,or

of local administration,or of government, or of legislationsuch as the Govemor's Northem

Region, Western Region and Eastern Region (Definition of Boundaries) Proclamation, 1954~').

For at al1thesetimes, one has stillto answerthe crucial question: Who conferredon GreatBritain

the authorityto give awayBakassi? Andwhen? Andhow?

110. But al1this, Mr. President and Members of the Court, takes us .some way from the

practicalitiesofthe realworldinthe Bakassi Peninsula.fterthe FirstWorldWarthe whole ofthe

mandated temtory of the BritishCameroons came to be administered as part of the Nigeria

Protectorate; any distinction between mandatedand protectorate temtory was of virtually no

practicalsignificanceforthe peopleof BakassiandCalabar.

111. There was no practical day-to-day need for the British or local administration to

distinguish between what might havebeen formerGermantemtory and what wasBritishprotected

Nigerian tenitory. For the people of Bakassi they continuedto be, as they always had been,

Nigerian and,despite whateverchanges there mighthave been in the constitutional arrangements,

theycontinuedto looktoNigeriaasthe sourceofgovemmentalsupportand authority.

112. It isclear from the detailed evidence placed before the Court in some 17pages in L

Nigeria's Counter-Memorialw , iththe accompanying~nnexes~',that duringthe wholeperiod from

6'~ounter-~emorilfNigeria,Ann.59.

62~ounter-~emoriaolfNigeria,pp.186-203,paras.9.20-9.72.1913to 1960the realities of the ties between Bakassiand Calabar were intense, and that British

administrative officialsshowed no dispositionto ignore or ovemde them. It is alsoapparent from

the record that, although in the early period of the mandate a very few British officials were

troubled by the territorial distinctionswith which they were faced, those distinctions simplyfell

away during the time of United Nations Trusteeship. At that time, as the population of both

Bakassi and the Nigeria Protectorate as a whole increased, Nigerian local authority legislation

became increasinglyspecific, andinparticularmadeexpress referenceto settlementson Bakassi.

Mr.President and Members of the Court, this pleading has been rather long, but 1 can

summarizeits mainpointsvery simply.

113.First, Bakassiwas part ofthe territory ofthe Kingsand Chiefsof Old Calabar.

114.Second, in 1884 the Kingsand Chiefsof Old Calabarhad internationaltreaty-making

capacity.

115. Third, when in 1884 Great Britain became the protecting State in respect of Old

Calabar, Great Britainacquired only the limited rights conferred by the terms of the Treaty of

Protection, and those rights did not include either sovereigntyover the territory of Old Calabaror

theright orpowerto giveaway itstemtory: "protection",not dismemberment,wasGreat Britain's

role.

116.Fourth,GreatBritain consequentlyhadno legaltitleto Bakassiand no legalauthorityto

transferBakassito Germanyby theTreaty ofMarch 1913.

117.Fifth, Germanycould acquireno morethan it was lawful for Great Britainto give, and

thus couldacquireno goodtitle to Bakassi.

118. Sixth, no successor to Germany, right through to Cameroon, could acquire from its

predecessorany better title.

119.Seventh,at al1times up to 1960title to Bakassi consequently remainedwith the Kings

andChiefsof Old Calabarand, thereafier,with Nigeria.

120. Eighth, at al1times while the Treaty of Protection remained in force Great Britain

continuedto lack powerto give Bakassiaway, and at al1times when itwas administeringpart of

Carneroons,Britain lacked al1authority unilaterallyto Varyits boundaries, whetherby additionor

subtraction. 121. Ninth, and last, in practice throughout the period from 1913 to 1960 Bakassi was

administeredfrom and aspart of Nigeria,andwasnever adrninisteredfiomor as part ofCameroon.

Mr. Presidentand Members ofthe Court,1thank you foryour attention. 1wouldinvite you,

at an appropriate time perhaps tomorrowmorning- to cal1upon Mr.Ian Brownlieto continue I

the presentationof Nigeria's casThank you, Mr. President.

Le PRESIDENT :Je vous remercie,sir Arthur. Cecimet un terme à la séancede ce matin.

Nous reprendronsnostravaux demainmatin à 10heures. Laséanceest levée.

L 'audienceestlevée à13h 05.