Audience publique tenue le vendredi 1er mars 2002, à 10 heures, sous la présidence de M. Guillaume, président

NO;- corrigé

Uncorrected

Cour internationale InternationalCourt
deJustice ofJustice

LAHAYE THE HAGUE

Audiencepublique

tenue levendredi mars2002,àIOheures,auPalaisdelaPaix,

sous laprésidendeM. Guillaume,président,

en l'affairedelaFrontièreterrestreetmaritimeentrele Camerounet leNigéria
(Cameroun c.Nigéria;Guinéeéquatoria(intervenant))

COMPTE RENDU

YEAR 2002

Publicsitting

heldon Friday 1rch2002,ut 10 a.m, atthePeacePalace,

PresidentGuillaumepresiding,

in the caseconcerningthe Land andMaritimedav betweenCameroonandNigeria
(Cameroon vNigeria: EquatorialGuineaintervening)

VERBATIMRECORDPrésent: 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,juges adhoc

M. Couvreur,greffierPresent: President Guillaume
Vice-President Shi

Judges Ranjeva
Herczegh
Fleischhauer
Koroma
Higgins
Pana-Aranguren
Kooijmans

Rezek
Al-Khasawneh
Buergenthal
Elaraby
Judgesad hoc Mbaye
Ajïbola

Registrar CouvreurLe Gouvernemend t e laRépubliquedu Camerounest représenp tar :

S. Exc.M. AmadouAli,ministred'Etatchargédelajustice, gardedes sceaux,

comme agent;

M.MauriceKarnto,doyen de la facultédes sciences juridiqueset politiques de l'universitéde
YaoundéII,membre delaCommissiondu droitinternational,avocatau barreau de Paris,

M.PeterY. Ntamark,professeur àla facultédes sciencejsuridiqueset politiquesde l'universitéde

YaoundéII,Barrister-at-Law,membrede 1'InnerTemple,anciendoyen,

comme coagents,conseilsetavocats;

M.Alain Pellet, professeuà l'universitéde ParisX-Nanterre,membre et ancien président dela
Commissiondudroitinternational,

commeagentadjoint, conseiletavocat;

M.Joseph Marie Bipoun Woum, professeur à la facultédes sciencesjuridiques etpolitiquesde
l'universitéde Yaoundé II, ancienministra,nciendoyen,

commeconseillerspécialetavocat;

M.Michel Aurillac,ancienministre,conseillerd'Etathonoraire,avocaten retraite,

M.Jean-PierreCot, professeuràl'universitédeParis1(Panthéon-Sorbonne) a,ncienministre,

M.MauriceMendelson,Q.C.,professeur émérit deel'universitédeLondres,Bawister-ut-Law,

M.MalcolmN. Shaw, professeurà la facultéde droit de l'université deLeicester,titulaire de la
chaire sirRobert Jennings,Barrister-ut-Law,

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

M.ChristianTomuschat, professeur à l'universitéHurnbold deBerlin, ancienmembre et ancien
présidentde la Commission du droit international,

M.OlivierCorten,professeur à la Facultéde droitdel'université lideBruxelles,

M.DanielKhan,chargédecours à l'Institutde droitinternational del'universitédeMunich,

M.Jean-Marc Thouvenin, professeur à l'université deParisX-Nanterre,avocat au barreau de
Paris,sociétéd'avocatLsysias,

commeconseilset avocats;TheGovernmentof theRepublicof Cameroon isrepreseniedby:

H.E.Mr. AmadouAli,Minister ofStateresponsibleforJustice,Keeper oftheSeals,

asAgent;

Mr. Maurice Kamto, Dean, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of YaoundéII,
memberofthe InternationalLawCommission,AvocatattheParis Bar, LysiasLawAssociates,

Mr.Peter Y.Ntamark,Professor, Faculty ofLawand PoliticalScience,Universityof YaoundéII,
Barrister-at-Law,memberof theInnerTemple,formerDean,

as Co-Agents,CounselandAdvocates;

Mr.Alain Pellet, Professor, Universityof ParisX-Nanterre,member and former Chairmanof the
InternationalLawCommission,

as Depuîy Agent, CounsealndAdvocate;

Mr. Joseph-MarieBipounWoum,Professor, Facultyof Law and Political Science, Universityof
YaoundéII, formerMinister, formerDean,

as SpecialAdviserand,4dvocate;

Mr.MichelAurillac,formerMinister, HonoraryConseillerd'État,retiredAvocat,

Mr.Jean-PierreCot,Professor, University of Par1(Panthéon-Sorbonne)f,ormerMinister,

Mr.MauriceMendelson,Q.C.,EmeritusProfessorUniversityof London,Barrister-at-Law,

Mr. Malcolm N. Shaw, Sir RobertJennings Professor of International Law, Faculty ofLaw,
Universityof Leicester,Bamster-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, International Law Commission,

Mr.OlivierCorten, Professor,Facultyof Law,Université librde Bruxelles,

Mr.DanielKhan,Lecturer, InternationalLawInstitute, Universityof Munich,

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

as CounselandAdvocates;SirIanSinclair, K.C.M.G., Q.C., Barrister-at-Law, ancien membre de la Commission du droit
international,

M.EricDiamantis,avocataubarreaudeParis,Moquet,Bordes & Associés,

M.Jean-Pierre Mignard, avocaatu barreaude Paris,sociétéd'avocasysias,

M.JosephTjop,consultant àla sociétéd'avocatLsysias,chercheurau Centrede droit international
deNanterre(CEDIN),UniversitéParis X-Nanterre,

commeconseils;

M.PierreSemengue,générad l'armée,contrôleur généradles armées,ancienchef d'état-major des
armées,

M.JamesTataw, générad le division,conseiller logistique,ancienchef d'état-majorde l'arméede
terre,

S.Exc.Mme IsabelleBassong, ambassadeur du Cameroun auprèd ses pays duBenelux et de
l'Unioneuropéenne,

S.Exc.M. BiloaTang,ambassadeurduCamerounenFrance,

S.Exc.M. MartinBelinga Eboutou, ambassadeur,représentant permaned nt Camerounauprèsde

l'organisationdesNationsUnies àNewYork,

M. EtienneAteba, ministre-conseiller, chargé d'affairesa.i.à l'ambassade du Cameroun,
àLaHaye,

M. Robert Akamba, administrateurcivilprincipal, chargéde mission ausecrétariatgénérale la

présidencede laRépublique,

M.Anicet Abanda Atangana, attachéau secrétariat généra dle la présidence dela République,
chargéde coursà l'universitédeYaoundéII,

M.ErnestBodoAbanda,directeurdu cadastre,membrede la commissionnationaledesfrontières,

M.OusmaneMey,anciengouverneurdeprovince,

Le chefSamuelMoka LiffafaEndeley,magistrathonoraire, Barrister-at-Law, membre du Middle
Temple (Londres),ancienprésidentdela chambreadministrativede laCour suprême,

Me MarcSassen,avocatetconseiljuridique, sociétPetten,Tideman& Sassen(LaHaye),

M.Francis FaiYengo, ancien gouverneurde province, directeurde l'org-nisationdu temtoire,
ministère de l'administraterritoriale,

M.JeanMbenoun, directeurde l'administration centralau secrétariat général la présidence de
laRépublique,Sir Ian Sinclair, K.C.M.G., Q.C.,Barrister-at-Law, formermember of the International Law
Commission,

Mr.EricDiamantis,AvocatattheParisBar, Moquet,Bordes & Associés,

Mr.Jean-PierreMignard,AvocatattheParis Bar,LysiasLawAssociates,

Mr. Joseph Tjop, Consultant toLysias Law Associates, Researcher at the Centre de droit
internationalde Nanterre(CEDIN),University of Paris X-Nanterre,

as Counsel;

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

Armed Forces,

Major-GeneralJamesTataw,LogisticsAdviser,Former Headof StaffoftheAmy,

H.E.Ms Isabelle Bassong,Arnbassadorof Cameroonto the BeneluxCountriesandtothe European
Union,

H.E.Mr.BiloaTang, Ambassadorof CameroontoFrance,

H.E. Mr. Martin Belinga Eboutou, Arnbassador, Permanent Representatiof Cameroon to the
United NationsinNewYork,

Mr. Etienne Ateba, Minister-Counsellor,Chargéd'affaires a.i. at the Embassyof Cameroon,
TheHague,

Mr. RobertAkamba,Principal CivilAdministrator,Chargéde mission, GeneralSecretariatof the
Presidency ofthe Republic,

Mr.AnicetAbandaAtangana,Attachéto the GeneralSecretariatof the Presidencyofthe Republic,
Lecturer,UniversityofYaoundéII,

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-Lawm , ember of the
Middle Temple (London),,former President of the Administrativehamberof the Supreme

Court,

MaîtreMarcSassen,Advocateand LegalAdviser,Petten, Tideman& Sassen(TheHague),

Mr.FrancisFai Yengo,formerProvincialGovernor,Director,Organisationdu Territoire,Ministry
ofTerritorialAdministration,

Mr. Jean Mbenoun,Director, CentralAdministration,GeneralSecretariatof the Presidencyof the
Republic,M. EdouardEtoundi, directeurde l'administration centraau secrétariatgénéradle la présidence
de laRépublique,

M.Robert Tanda,diplomate,ministèredesrelationsextérieures

commeconseillers;

M. SamuelBetah Sona,ingénieur-géologue e,pertconsultantdel'organisation desNationsUnies
pourle droitde la mer,

M. ThomsonFitt Takang, chefde serviced'administrationcentrale au secrétariag ténérad le la
présidencede la République,

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

M. Jean-Pierre Meloupou,capitaine de frégate, chefde la division A£iiqueau ministèrede la
défense,

M. PaulMobyEtia, géographe, directeud rel'Institutnationaldecartographie,

M. André Loudet,ingénieur cartographe,

M. AndréRoubertou, ingénieug rénéradlel'armement,hydrographe,

commeexperts;

MmeMarieFlorenceKollo-Efon, traducteurinterprèteprincipal,

commetraducteurinterprète;

Mlle CélineNegre,chercheurau Centrededroit internationaldeNanterre (CEDIN),Universitéde
ParisX-Nanterre

MlleSandrineBarbier, chercheurau Centrede droitinternationalde Nanterre(CEDN), Université

deParis X-Nanterre,

M. Richard Penda Keba, professeur certifié d'histoire, cabinet du ministeela justice, ancien
proviseurde lycées,

commeassistantsde recherche;

M.BoukarOumara,

M. GuyRogerEba'a,

M. AristideEsso,

M.NkendeForbinake,

M.NfanBile,Mr. EdouardEtoundi, Director,CentralAdministration, GeneralSecretariat ofthe Presidencyof
theRepublic,

Mr.Robert Tanda,diplomat,MinistryofForeign Affairs,

as Advisers;

Mr.SamuelBetahSona,Geological Engineer,ConsultingExpertto the UnitedNations forthe Law
ofthe Sea,

Mr. ThomsonFitt Takang, Department Head, Central Administration,General Secretariatof the
Presidencyofthe Republic,

Mr.Jean-JacquesKoum,Directorof Exploration, NationalHydrocarbonsCompany(SNH),

CommanderJean-PierreMeloupou,Headof AfiicaDivision attheMinistryofDefence,

Mr.PaulMobyEtia,Geographer, Director, Institut nationalde cartographie,

Mr.AndréLoudet,CartographieEngineer,

Mr.AndréRoubertou,MarineEngineer,Hydrographer,

as Experts;

Ms MarieFlorenceKollo-Efon,PrincipalTranslator-Interpreter,

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

Ms SandrineBarbier, Researcher,Centred'étudesde droit international de Nanter(CEDIN),
UniversityofParisX-Nanterre,

Mr. Richard Penda Keba. Certified Professor of History,cabinet of the Minister of State for
Justice,former HeadofHighSchool,

as ResearchAssistants;

Mr.BoukarOumara,

Mr.GuyRogerEba'a,

Mr.AristideEsso,

Mr.Nkende Forbinake,

Mr.Nfan Bile,M.EithelMbocka,

M. OlingaNyozo'o,

commeresponsablesdela communication;

MmeRenéeBakker,

MmeLawrencePolirsztok,

MmeMireilleJung,

MmeTete Béatrice Epeti-Kame,

commesecrétairesde la délégation.

Le Gouvernementdela Républiquefédérad luNigériaest représentépar :

S.Exc.l'honorableMusaE.Abdullahi, ministre d'Etat, ministre de la Justice du Gouvernement
fédéradlu Nigéria,

commeagent;

Le chefRichard AkinjideSAN, ancien Attorney-Generalde la Fédération, membrd eu barreau
d'Angleterre,ancien membrede la Commissiondudroit international,

M. Alhaji AbdullahiIbrahimSAN, CON, commissaire pour les fi-ontières internationales,
commissionnationaledesfrontièresduNigéria,ancienAttorney-GeneraldelaFédération,

comme coagents;

MmeNella Andem-Ewa,Attorney-Generae ltcommissaire àlajustice,Etat deCrossRiver,

M.IanBrownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., membre de la Commission du droit international, membre du
barreau d'Angleterre,membrede l'Institutde droitinternational,

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

M.JamesCrawford, S.C.,professeurde droitinternationàl'universitéde Cambridge,titulairede
la chaire Whewell, membredes barreauxd'Angleterreet d'Australie,membrede l'Institutde
droitinternational,

M.Georges Abi-Saab, professeur honoraire à l'Institut universitaire de hautes études
4
internationalesdeGenève,membre del'Institutde droit international,

M.AlastairMacdonald, géomètre a,nciendirecteurde1'OrdnanceSurvey,Grande-Bretagne,

comme conseilset avocats;

M.Timothy H.Daniel,associé,cabinetD.J.Freeman,Solicitors,Cityde Londres,Mr.Eithel Mbocka

Mr.OlingaNyozo'o,

as MediaOflcers;

MsRenéBakker,

Ms Lawrence Polirsztok,

MsMireilleJung,

Mr. NigelMcCollum,

MsTeteBéatriceEpeti-Kame,

asSecretaries.

TheGovernment oftheFederalRepublicofNigeriais representedby:

H.E.theHonourableMusaE. Abdullahi,Ministerof StateforJusticeofthe FederalGovernmentof

Nigeria,

asAgent;

Chief RichardAkinjideSAN, FormerAttorney-Generalof the Federation, Member ofthe English
Bar,formerMemberofthe InternationalLawCommission,

AlhajiAbdullahiIbrahimSAN,CON,Commissioner,International Boundaries,NationalBoundary
Commission ofNigeria,FormerAttorney-Generalof theFederation,

as Co-Agents;

Mrs.NellaAndem-Ewa,Attorney-GeneralandCommissionerforJustice, CrossRiver State,

Mr. Ian Brownlie,C.B.E.,Q.C., Memberof the International LawCommission,Member ofthe
English Bar,Memberofthe Instituteof InternationalLaw,

Sir Arthu r atts, K.C.M.G., Q.C.,Member of the English Bar, Member of the Institute of
InternationalLaw,

Mr. James Crawford, S.C., WhewellProfessor of International Law, Universityof Cambridge,

Member ofthe Englishand AustralianBars,Member oftheInstituteof International Law,

Mr. GeorgesAbi-Saab,Honorary Professor,GraduateInstituteof InternationalStudies,Geneva,
Memberofthe Instituteof InternationalLaw,

Mr.Alastair Macdonald,Land Surveyor,FormerDirector,Ordnanceurvey,GreatBritain,

as CounselandAdvocates;

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

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

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

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

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

M.GeoBey Marston, directeur du départementdes étudesjuridiques au Sidney SussexCollege,
UniversitédeCambridge,membredu barreaud'AngleterreetduPays de Galles,

commeconseils;

S. Exc.l'honorableDubemOnyia,ministred7Etat,ministredesaffairesétrangères,

M. MaxwellGidado, assistant spécial principal du présidentpour les affaires juridiques et
constitutionnelles,ancienAttorney-Generalet commissaiàlaJustice,Etatd'Adamaoua,

M.Alhaji DahiruBobbo,directeurgénéral, commissionnationale des frontières,

M.A.O. Cukwurah,coconseil,

M. 1.Ayua, membrede l'équipe juridique duNigéria,

M.F.A. Kassim,directeurgénérad lu servicecartographiquede laFédération,

M.AlhajiS.M.Diggi,directeurdes frontièresinternationales,commission nationaledesfiontières,

M.K.A. Adabale,directeurpourle droitinternationaletle droit comparé, ministèee lajustice,

M. A. B.Maitama,colonel,ministère deladéfense,

M.JalalArabi,membrede l'équipe juridique du Nigéria,

M. Gbola Akinola,membredel'équipejuridiqueduNigéra,

M.K.M. Turnsah,assistant spécialdu directeurgénéradle la commissionnationaledes frontières
etsecrétairedel'équipejuridique,

M.AliyiuNasir,assistantspécialdu ministred'Etat,ministredelaJustice,

commeconseillers;

M. ChrisCarleton,C.B.E., bureauhydrographiqueduRoyaume-Uni,

M. DickGent,bureauhydrographiqueduRoyaume-Uni,

M. Clive Schofield,unitéderecherchesurlesfrontièresinternationales, Univerde Durham,

M. ScottB. Edrnonds,directeurdes opérationcartographiques,InternationalMappingAssociates,

M.RobertC.Rizzutti,cartographe principal,nternational MappingAssociates,Mr.AlanPeny, Partner, D.J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityof London,

Mr. David Lerer,Solicitor,D.J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityof London,

Mr. Christopher Hackford, Solicit, . J.Freeman, Solicitors,Cityof London,

MsCharlotteBreide,Solicitor,D. J. Freeman,Solicitors,City of London,

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

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

as Counsel;

H.E.the Honourable DubemOnyia,Ministerof Statefor Foreign Affairs,

Mr. MaxwellGidado,Senior Special Assistantto thePresident(Legaland Constitutional Matters),
Former Attorney-General and CommissioneforJustice,AdamawaState,

AlhajiDahiruBobbo,Director-General,NationalBoundaryCommission,

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

Mr.1.Ayua,Member,Nigerian LegalTeam,

Mr.F.A.Kassim, Surveyor-Generao l fthe Federation,

AlhajiS.M. Diggi,Director(InternationalBoundaries, ationalBoundaryCommission,

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

Colonel A.B. Maitama,MinistryofDefence,

Mr.JalalArabi,Member,Nigerian Legal Team,

Mr.GbolaAkinola,Member, Nigerian LegalTeam,

Mr. K. M. Tumsah, Special Assistant to Director-General, Natioloundary Commissionand
Secretaryto theLegaleam,

Mr.AliyuNasir, Special Assistantto theMinisterofStateforJustice,

asAdvisers;

Mr.ChrisCarleton,C.B.E., UnitedKingdomHydrographic Office,

Mr.DickGent,United KingdomHydrographicOffice,

Mr.Clive Schofield, International BoundarsesearchUnit,Universityof Durham,

Mr. ScottB. Edmonds,Directorof CartographicOperations,International Mapping Associates,

Mr.RobertC.Rizzutti,SeniorMapping Specialist,InternationMl appingAssociates,M. BruceDaniel,International MappingAssociates,

Mme VictoriaJ. Taylor,InternationalMappingAssociates,

Mme StephanieKim Clark,InternationalMappingAssociates,

M. RobinCleverly,ExplorationManager,NPAGroup,

Mme ClaireAinsworth,NPAGroup,

commeconseillers scient$ques et techniques;

M. MohammedJibrilla,experteninformatique,commissionnationaledesfiontières,

Mme CoralieAyad, secrétairec,abinetD.J.Freeman, Solicitors,CitydeLondres,

Mme ClaireGoodacre,secrétaire, cabinet. J.Freeman,Solicitors,Cityde Londres,

Mme SarahBickell, secrétaire,abinetD.J.Freeman, Solicitors,City de Londres,

Mme MichelleBurgoine, spécialisteen technologie de l'information, cabinet D.J. Freeman,
Solicitors,City de Londres,

commepersonnel administratiJ:

Le Gouvernement dela République de Guinéé equatoriale, quiest autorisàeintervenir dans
l'instance,est représenpar :

S. Exc.M. RicardoMangueObamaN'Fube, ministre d'Etat,ministre du travailet de la sécurité
sociale,

commeagent etconseil;

S. Exc.M.RubénMayeNsue Mangue, ministrede la justice et des cultes, vice-présidentde la
commissionnationaledes frontières,

S. Exc. M.CristobalMatlanaElaNchama,ministre desmineset de l'énergie,vice-présidentde la
commissionnationaledes frontières,

M. DomingoMba Esono, directeur national de la société nationale de pétrole de
Guinéeéquatorialem, embredela commissionnationaledesfrontières,

M. AntonioNzambiNlonga,Attorney-General,

commeconseillers;

M. Pierre-MarieDupuy, professeur de droit international public à l'université de Paris
(Panthéon-Assase)tà l'Institutuniversitaire eurodeFlorence,

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

commeconseilsetavocats;Mr.Bruce Daniel, International MappingAssociates,

Ms VictoriaJ.Taylor,InternationalMappingAssociates,

Ms StephanieKimClark,InternationalMappingAssociates,

Dr.Robin Cleverly, ExploratioManager,NPA Group,

MsClaireAinsworth,NPAGroup,

asScientificand TechnicalAdvisers;

Mr.MohammedJibrilla,ComputerExpert,National BoundaryCommission,

MsCoralieAyad,Secretary,D.J. Freeman,Solicitors,City ofLondon,

MsClaireGoodacre, Secretary,D. J. Freernan,Solicitors,CityofLondon,

MsSarahBickell,Secretary,D. J. Freeman,Solicitors,CityofLondon,

MsMichelleBurgoine,IT Specialist,D. J.Freeman, Solicitors,Cityof London,

asAdministrators.

TheGovernmentof the Republicof Equatorial Guinea,whichhas beenpermittedto intemenein
thecase, is representedby:

H.E.Mr.RicardoMangueObarnaNYFubeM , inisterofStateforLabor andSocialSecurity,

asAgentand Counsel;

H.E. Mr. RubénMaye Nsue Mangue, Minister of Justice andReligion, Vice-Presidentof the
NationalBoundaryCommission,

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

Mr. Domingo Mba Esono, 'NationalDirector of the Equatorial GuineaNational Petroleurn
Company,Member oftheNational BoundaryCommission,

Mr. Antonio NzambiNlonga,Attorney-General,

asAdvisers;

Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor of Public International Law at the University of Paris
(Panthéon-Assasa)ndat theEuropeanUniversityInstituteinFlorence,

Mr.David A. Colson, LeBoeuf,Lamb,Greene & MacRae,L.L.P., Washington,D.C., memberof
theCaliforniaStateBarandDistrictofColumbiaBar,

as Counseland Advocates;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 de 1'Etat
deVirginie,

commeconseil;

MmeJannette E.Hasan, membre du cabinet LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P.,
Washington, D.C., membre du barreau du district de Columbia et du barreau de1'Etatde
Floride,

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

commeexpertsjuridiques;

M.Coalter G. Lathrop,SovereignGeographicInc., Chape1Hill, CarolineduNord,

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

commeexpertstechniques.SirDerekBowett,

asSenior Counsel;

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

asCounsel;

Ms JannetteE.Hasan,LeBoeuf, Lamb,Greene & MacRae,L.L.P.,Washington,D.C.,memberof
the DistrictofColumbiaBarandFlorida State Bar,

Mr. HervéBlatry,LeBoeuf,Lamb, Greene & MacRae,L.L.P.,Paris, Avocata la Cour,memberof
theParis Bar,

asLegaZExperts;

Mr. CoalterG. Lathrop, Sovereign GeograpInc.,Chape1Hill, North Carolina,

Mr. AlexanderM. Tait, EquatorGraphics,SilverSpring,Maryland,

as TechnicalExperts. Le PRESIDENT : Veuillez vous asseoir. L'audience est ouverte. Avant d'inviter la

délégationde la Républiquefédéraldu Nigériaà poursuivre ses plaidoiries,je souhaiteraisvous

préciserce qui suit. Le Nigériaa fait tenir hier après-miài la Cour, ainsi qu'à la Partie

camerounaise, la copiesur cassette du montage audiovisuel qu'il déstrésenteà l'audience

d'hier.Ainsi qu'il est d'usageen pareil cas,j'ai consultéles agents des Pàrce sujet. La

République duCamerounm'a faitsavoir qu'ellene s'opposaitpasàcetteprésentation. La Coura

décidé quele Nigéria pourraitproduire le montage audiovisuelen question, au moment qui lui

paraîtrait le plus opportun lors de ses plaidoiries. Je donne maintenantla parole au nom de la

République fédérale duNigéa riaprofesseurIanBrownlie.

Mr. BROWNLIE: Thank you, Mr.President.

POST-INDEPENDE BNAKEASSI

1. Mr. President,distinguishedMembersof the Court, it is a considerablehonour forme to

represent the Federal Republicof Nigeria in these proceedings.My task today is to examinethe

legal bases of Nigeria's title to the Bakassi Peninsula with particular reference to the

post-independence period.

2. My agendawill consistof seven elements:

First: The bases ofNigerian title.

Second: The absenceof evidenceofa peaceful Cameroonianpresence.

Third: A discussionof certainpreliminaryquestions.

Fourth: A description of Bakassi and the Nigerian cornmunity living in the Bakassi,

whichnumbersover 150,000.

Fifth: The relianceofNigeria uponthe doctrineof historicalconsolidationoftitle.

Sixth: Anexaminationof the leadingconstituents ofthe evidence ofNigeriantitleand

therelationof Bakassito theNigerian mainland.

And finally:The evidenceof Cameroonianacquiescence.

3. Referencesto documentsand reportsofJudgrnentswill appearin thetranscript.

4. And my argumentbeginswith thelegalsituationatthe time ofindependence. 5. As my colleague, Sir Arthur Watts,has pointed out, thetitle of Nigeria to Bakassi was

originally atitle vested in the Kings and Chiefsof OldCalabar. The originaltitle of Old Calabar

was not affected by the Anglo-GermanTreaty of 11March 1913and was eventually absorbed in

the emerging entityof Nigeria. At the time of independencein 1960the original title to Bakassi

vestedin Nigeria asthe successorto Old Calabar.

6. The considerations advanced by the Attorney-General of Cross River State, and by

SirArthurWatts, constiîutea powerful andattractive affirmationof the originaltitle of Nigeriato

the Bakassi Peninsula,whichoriginaltitle subsisted at thetime of independence.

7. In the light of this argument, based upon original title, the position of Nigeria involves

threedistinctbut interrelatedbasesof title overthe BakassiPeninsula.

(i) Long occupation by Nigeria and by Nigerian nationals constituting an historical

consolidation of title and confirmingthe original title of the Kings and Chiefs of Old

Calabar,whichtitle vestedinNigeriaat the timeof independencein 1960;

(ii) peaceful possession by Nigeria, acting as sovereign, and an absence of protest by

Cameroon; and

(iii) manifestations of sovereignty by Nigeria together with acquiescence by Cameroon in

Nigerian sovereignq overthe BakassiPeninsula.

8. These threebases of titleapply bothindividuallyandjointly. In particular,thetitle on the

basis of historical consolidation,together with acquiescence,in the periodince the independence

of Nigeria, constitutesan independent and self-sufficienttitle to Bakassi. The evidence indicates

two stagesin thepost-independenceperiod.

9. Stage 1.Fromthe timeof independenceuntil 1968Nigena had peaceful possessionof the

Bakassi Peninsula - peacefiil possession of the Bakassi Peninsula - which continued to be

administeredas part of the Eastern Region of Nigena. In 1968there were acts of harassmentby

Cameroonian soldierswhich were aimed at some of theNigerian towns. However, Cameroonhad

no systemof administrationinplace at thattime or at anytimethereafter.

10. Stage 2. From 1972 there were Cameroonian initiatives conceming the renaming of

towns and villages, initiativeswhich were ineffective and which clearly indicatedthe absence ofany Cameroonian administrationin the region. From 1972 onwards there were sporadic

Cameroonianactivitiesbutat nostagedid Cameroonexerciseoverallorexclusivecontrol.

11.The specificcharacteristicsofthe situationcannowbe identified.

(i) At least until968 Nigeria exercised peaceful possessionin respect of Bakassiand

Carneroon acquiescedinthisstatusquo.

(ii) Atno stagedid Cameroonexercise peacefil possession.

(iii) The effectivepossession ofBakassibyNigeriaafterindependence confirmedthe original

title whichsubsistedas a consequenceof the ineffectivenessandnon-implementationof

the 1913 Treatyin theBakassiregion.

(iv) Quite apart fiom the proof of originaltitle the effectivepossession of Nigeriais to be

found in acts manifesting a continuousand peaceful display of sovereignty over the

tenitory.

12. Thus far 1have presentedthe analyticalschema ofthe Nigerianbases of title. Before1

advanceMer on the presentationof the casefor Nigeria, itis necessaryto establish asenseof

contextandgeneralperspective.

The absenceof evidenceof a peaceful Cameroonian presence

13. Mr. President,these proceedingsare based on a series of paradoxes, andone of these

paradoxesis the absenceof evidenceof a Cameroonianpresence in the Bakassi Peninsula. This

involvesa paradox, of course, because Cameroonis the claimant in these proceedingsbegunby

unilateral Application.

14. In this context it is significant that the dispute did not substantially emerge until

January 1994. This is confirmedbythe contentsofthe Application,and, inparticular, paragrap9s

to 11,and 13.

15. The textofthe CameroonianMernorialis entirelycompatiblewiththisview: 1referhere

to paragraphs1.19 to1.35.

16. The conduct of Cameroonhas been the subject of a preliminary examinationin the

Nigerian Counter-Memorialfrompages 280 to284. When in 1968 the Nigerianfishingport of

Abanawas attackedby Camerooniansecurityforces,the NigerianGovernmentpromptlyprotestedthe violationof Nigerian sovereignty(Ann. NC-M 206). A furtherepisode of harassment in 1970

wasalsothe subjectof protest(Ann. NC-M207). This activityby Cameroonwasnot accompanied

by anyassertionofsovereigntyin responsetotheNigerian protests.

17. In the period after Independence,the BakassiPeninsulawas administered as a part of

Nigeria à titre de souverain, was inhabited by Nigerian nationals, and had exclusively Nigerian

social and economic affiliations. In these proceedings Cameroon now claims that she has

consistently exercised sovereigntyn the region. But,if this werereally the case, therewouldhave

beena series, a pattern,of protestsin faceoftheNigerianpresence.

18. The incidence of protests confirms the view that the administration of the region by

Nigeria after Independencewas not contestedby Cameroonuntil a considerablenurnber of years

had elapsed. TheNigerian presence was publicin everyway andinvolvedtheexerciseof authority

over a substantial population. In the event the first Cameroon protest was sent on

15September 1969 (Counter-MemorialofNigeria, Ann. NC-M 148). This refersto the buildingof

a primaryschoolby"the religious authoritiesofNigeria" at "Abana,in Camerountemtory" - this

refersto tab 15in thejudges' folder. No referenceismadeto theextent of the Cameroonclaim.

19. The next relevant item is the Cameroonian Note dated 13October1980 (Reply of

Cameroon,Ann. RC51 .) The textis as follows:

"The Ministryof Foreign Affairsof the UnitedRepublic of Cameroonpresents

its complimentsto the Embassy oftheFederal Republic ofNigeria andhasthe honour
to state that, on the 3rd to 4th July 1980, five UniformedNigerian Police Officers
entered Jabane, atenitory under the sovereigntyofthe UnitedRepublicof Cameroon,
and arrested one Nigerian prisoner, who had escaped from the Nigerian Convict
Prison, without the courtesy of alerting or even getting official clearance fiom the
competentCameroonian Authorities."

AndtheNote continues:

"While stressing on the fact thatthis is only one of the several visits made by
the Nigerian Security Officers to these frontier ports, without any courtesy of first
obtainingofficialclearance,the Ministrywould liketo have infuture, the cooperation
of the Nigerian Authoritiesand cease in the continuation of such incidents, which
could hamper the good neighbourhood relations that exist alreadybetween our
brotherlycountries."

20. This appearsto be the first CameroonianNote directlyrelated to the issue of sovereignty

over Bakassi."Jabane" is the designation usedby Cameroonfor Abana. The protest of 1980 isgivenprominenceinthe listofprotestswhichappearsintheReplyofCameroon,paragraphs 5.233

and 5.234.

21. The general picture receives further confirmationfiom the text of the Cameroonian

Memorial.

22. First, until 1972 the Govemment of Cameroon acquiesced in the long-established

Nigerian administrationin the Bakassiregion. From 1972onwards,there werevariousCameroon

initiatives, and, in particular, project forthe renaming oftowns and villages, which clearly

demonstratesthe previous absenceof a Cameroonian administration.On the gound, there were

sporadicCameroonianactivitieswhich didnotresult intheestablishmentof an effective Cameroon

controlinthe region.

23. Secondly,at no stage did Cameroonexercisepeaceful possession. From the time of

Independencein 1960,until 1972,the Governmentof Cameroonfailedto challengethe legitimate

Nigenan presencein the region. In the yearsafter 1972,in spiteof agrowingintnisivenesson the

part of Cameroon,this late development ofan expansionist policy(almostcertainlyrelatedto the

purposes of petroleum exploration)could not erase the effects of the earlier attitude of

acquiescence.

24. Thirdly, this assessment receives general confirmation fiom the passages of the

Cameroon Memorial which are concemed with "structures administratives et actes

d'administration" atpages490 to 496. Inthesepassagesno precisedocumentsor data arerelated

to any date earlierthan 1968,andthe otheritems, if theyare givendates, arerelatedto the years

1976and later.

25. The key stages in the chronologyare confirmed bythe contents of the Cameroonian

Reply .

26. A strikingcharacteristic of theCameroon Replyis that it avoids makingany detailed

comment upon the evidence of Cameroonian acquiescence set forth in the Nigerian

Counter-Memorial at pages 267 to 280: 1 refer, in particular, to the Reply at page312,

paragraph5.236. Inanothersectionof the Reply,at pages 92to 94,Cameroonpurportsto examine

the acts of acquiescence"alleged by Nigeria". In this section Cameroon avoids dealingwithspecific issues of fact and law and instead resorts to abstract legal argument, ignoring the actual

evidence.

27. Similarly,in the sectionof the Replyrelating totherole of protests", atpages 94to 97,

there isan avoidanceof an examinationof theactual evidencepresentedby Nigeria. Moreover,the

Reply makesapartialadmission,whenit States:

"Itis true that the Camerooniangovernmenthas not alwaysprotested against
the encroachmentson its territory committed by the Nigerian authorities, or by
individuals with the support of those authorities. However, negative legal
consequencesfor Camerooncannot be derived from its passivity in a limited number
of cases."

And it continues:

"Firstly, the presentation of theacts by Nigeria is incorrect. Cameroondid
indeed send a number of protest notes to the Nigerian govemment (see inza, for
example, Chap.5, paras. 5.233-5.234, and Chap. 11, paras. 11.94-11.99 and
para. 11.216). Moreover, Cameroon defendedits right over Bakassi and the Darak
region, not only by diplomaticaction at inter-governmental levelbut also by acts of
authority manifesting its sovereignty." (Emphasis added.) (Reply, pp. 94-95,
para. 2.153.) [Translationprovided bytheFederalRepublicofNigeria revised by the
Registry.]

28. Butthesequalificationsdo not addupto verymuch. Whenone turns to pages 311to 312

of the Reply, there is a list of "officia1 protests"- "official protests- by Cameroon "à

1'occasion d'incidentssur Bakassi ". The list of seven protests covers the period from 1970to

1994. Onlyone protest is earlierthan 1980: only oneprotest is earlier than 1980. This relatesto

1970andconcems amaritimeincidentwhichtook place atthe entranceto the Rio delRey, offInua

Abasi (seeReply of Cameroon, Ann.RC 20). The circurnstanceslyingbehind the alleged incident

are obscureand therelevant Note raisesno issueconcemingtitleto Bakassi.

29. Whenthe evidence is takenas a whole,it is clearthat at nostage did Cameroonexercise

peaceful possessionand at nostagedid Cameroonexercise controlinthe regionas a whole.

30. The evidence of Cameroonianpossession and control is very unimpressive at several

levels.

31.The firstelement is the chronology. Thus Cameroonpresentsno dataearlierthan 1968,

and very few items before 1973. The Cameroon data have been analysed in the Nigerian

Counter-Mernorial (pp. 264-267). This anomalyis confirmedand amplified by the contentof the

CameroonianReply,at pages 307to 312. 32. It is very significant that Cameroonhas not been able to produce any evidence of

affiliations of the communitiesin Bakassi with Cameroon. Cameroonhas not alleged that any

Camerooniannationals havebeen displacedas a consequenceof Nigerian actions. Noclaimhas

been presentedon behalfof Camerooniannationals residentin the Bakassiregion: 1refer hereto

the conclusionsoftheRepublicofCamerooninthe Memonalandagainin the Reply.

33. In the passages in the Memorial inwhich somereference to Cameroonian nationals

might have been expected, referenceis made exclusivelyto cornmunities of Nigerian origin

"résidanatu Cameroun ": 1referto theMemorial,at page490(para.4.433) andagainat page 491

(para.4.434).

34.The generalabsenceofa Cameroonianpresence emerges fromthe evidenceproduced by

the respectiveParties.

35.The Govemmentof Cameroonisunableto produceany reliableevidence concerningthe

administrationof justice in the Bakassiregion.This is clear from a perusal of the Memorial, at

pages490to 496 andthe Reply, pages307to 312. No fact isallegedand no document invokedto

prove the existenceof asystemofcriminaljustice.

36. In respect of the existence of a police presencet,he Memorial confinesitself to some

generalassertionsasfollows:

"In accordance with the system of deploying public services, and more
particularly security services, throughout the Cameroonian ttmitory, there are
Gendarmerie and customsservices at the administrative centre of the Division
(Mundemba) andat the administrativecentres of the Districts (Bamuso, Idabato,

Ekondo Titi,Mundemba,KomboItindi). Atthe districtlevel,suchas in Idabato,there
is onlyonegendarmerieunit." (Memorial,p. 493,para.4.444.)

37. In the list ofnames, as on the graphic at tab 16 and now on the screen, only West

Atabong, namedIdabatoby Cameroon, refers to atown inBakassi. No dates are indicatedin this

passage and no document cited. And, of course, it is adrnitted by Cameroon that only one

gendarmerieunit existed,althoughit isnotclearwhenitexisted.

38. The Reply of Cameroon makes no reference to the administrationof justice or the

presenceofpolice intheBakassiregion: here1refer againtothe Replyat pages307to 312.

39. The pleadings of Cameroon provide no adequate evidence of the exercise of civil

jurisdiction in the Bakassi region. The relevant paragraphs inthe Memorial, paragraphs4.450and 4.45 1,donot citeany documentsto supportthe assertions made. TheReply, pages 307to 312,

makes no claims relating to the exercise of civil jurisdiction. The text of the Memorial,

paragraph 4.45 1,refers to a customarycourt sitedin Bamusso,which is not located in the Bakassi

region. Andno evidenceis givento indicatethatthis courtactually exercisedjurisdictionoverany

part of Bakassior its residents. There is alsoa referencein the pleadingof Cameroonto a tribunal

of first instancein Mundemba, but,once again,this town is not in the Bakassi region, as wehave

seenalready.

40. The written pleadingsof Camerooncontain no reference of any kind to the exerciseof

the followingclasses of acts ofadministrationinthe BakassiPeninsula:

(i) The use of currency.

(ii) The exerciseof authorityby traditionalrulers.

(iii) The exercise of militaryjurisdiction.

(iv) Participationinparliamentaryelections.

(v) Controlof immigration.

(vi) The exercise of ecclesiasticaljurisdiction.

(vii) Postal administration.

(viii) The licensingof canoes.

(ix) The grant of lettersofadministration.

41.In respect of the following categoriesof administration, thespecific type is referredto

but no documentaryor otherevidenceis produced:

(i) Thejurisdiction of customarylawcourts.

(ii) Maintenanceof publicorder.

(iii) The exercise of civiljurisdiction.

(iv) Censustaking.

(v) Delimitation of electoralwards.

(vi) Public education.

(vii) Publicworks.

(viii) Public health.

(ix) The collection ofcustomsduties. 42. Thus, in all, 18significantforms of State activityare eithernotreferredto by Cameroon

orare assertedto existbutwithnoadequate proof.

43. A key aspectof the matteris the factthat Cameroonhas not produced anyevidenceto

suggest that the region is inhabited by nationals of Cameroon. This picture receives strong

confirmationfrom the pattern ofevidence relatingto State activitiesand acts of administratian,

patternwhich,of course,includestheabsenceofa Cameroonianpresence.

44. Mr.President, the various absences of Cameroonianactivities are eloquent. The

CameroonianReply failsto provideany contradiction of theevidence producedbyNigeria in the

Counter-Memorialontherole ofthetraditionalrulersintheadministrationofthe Bakassiregion.

45.Particularlystrikingis theweaknessofthe evidenceof publiceducationorthe existence

of churcheswith a Cameroonianprovenance. Inrespectof schoolstheCameroonianReply offers

no evidence but refers to paragraphs4.452 to 4.456 ofthe Memorial (see the Reply, p. 307,

para.5.218).

46. Infact the onlyrelevant statementinthe Memorialis in paragraph4.453which readsas

follows,inthe translationprovidedbythe Registry:

"Schools built by the Cameroonian Govermnent,at both the primary and
secondarylevels,are also foundin the Peninsula. TheCatholicSchool inMundemba,
the Catholic School in Ekondo-Titi,and the Primary School in Bamuso might be
mentionedas illustrationsattheprimarylevel,andat the secondarylevel, the Lycéein

Mundemba (foundedin 1975),the CES inIssangele(1992) and Bamuso (1992)as
regardsgeneral educationandthe SARin Mundembaas regardstechnical education
(the SAR founded in Bamuso proved unviable)." (Para.4.453.) [Translation
providedby theFederalRepublicofNigeriaandrevisedby theRegistry..]

47. Mr.President,as can be seenon the graphicattab 17, in factnone of theselocations are

in Bakassi and thus in the result Cameroon,in two roundsof written pleadings, has failed to

provideevidenceofa singleschoolrun by theCameroonianauthoritiesin the Bakassiregion with

the exceptionof a primary schoolreferredto in a report dated15October1988; which is in the

Reply of Cameroon,AnnexRC 180. The absenceof referenceto schools constitutes a powerful

contradictionof the Cameroonianclaimto sovereignty,moreespeciallywhenthe regionconcemed

ispopulated,and the provisionof schoolsis a normalaspectof life inNigeriansociety. Moreover,

the Replyof Cameroonhas failedtorespondtothe evidenceset forthinthe Counter-Mernorial,at

pages250to252, relatingto public education. 48. And the picture is reinforced by the evidence relating to churches. Churches, like

schools, form part of the fabric of life in the Bakassi towns and villages. The fabric of life is

Nigerian incharacter, both at thelevel of officialactivityand at the social level. As inthe case of

education,so in the case of churches,the Cameroonpleadings provideno evidenceofthe existence

of any churches affiliatedwith Cameroon: 1refer to the Cameroon Mernorial, pages 486 to 496,

andtheReply, pages307to 312.

49. In sharp contrastNigeriahas provided evidenceof the existence ofchurchesin the main

population centres in the Bakassi Peninsula. Thus Clan Heads with authority over the Bakassi

towns provide reliable evidence ofthe creationof churchesby authoritiesbased in Nigeria or by

individualsfiom Nigeria. The evidenceofthe ClanHeadsconfirmsthe existenceof churcheswith

exclusively Nigerianaffiliationsin the following towns: Archibong, Akwa (1955),Atabong West

(circa 1940), Atabong East (circa 1940),Abana (circa 1950), and Ine Akpa Ikang (1993). And

these places appear on tab 18and are nowon the screen. The detailsare set forth in the Nigerian

Rejoinderand the Appendix at pages195to213.

At nostagedid Cameroonexercisepeacefulpossession

50.There is no evidenceof a peaceful exerciseof possessionby Cameroon at any stage. In

the firstplace thereis a complete absenceofevidenceofthe presenceof Cameroonnationalsgoing

about their lawfül business in the region. And in the second place,there is evidencethat when a

Cameroonpresence appeared it involvedforcible intrusionupon apeacefil status quo, a peaceful

Nigerianstatus quo.

51.The forcibleintrusions beganin 1968and increasedin the period of 1970to 1972. The

townsandvillages affectedcanbe seen onthe graphicintab 19andnow on the screen. AsNigeria

has recordedin herRejoinder:

"CorrespondencebetweenEtubomOkon Ita,Etubomof the people of Atabong,
andthe Chiefs of local villagesin Bakassiin 1968reveals an interestinginsight into
their position in society. During the Nigerian civil war, a letter dated 5 April 1968
(AnnexNC-M 151)fromthe Etubomto the Chiefsof Abana, Ine Odiong, Ine Atayo,
Ine Akpak and Ine Atabongstated his concem that their villageshad been taken over
and occupied by Cameroonian soldiers and police acting under the orders of the
Cameroonian Govemment,and that the villagerswere being forced to change their

nationality fromNigerian to Cameroonian. He requestedthe attendanceof the Chiefs
atthe meetingto discuss the situation. This letterwas followedby correspondencein Efik (translationsare also provided) in which the Etubom arrangedthe meeting and
requested that the villages pay some of the cost of a visit by the Etubom and his
lawyer,BarristerAnwan, toLagosto bringthe situationto the attention oftherelevant
Federal Authorities (AnnexNC-M 152). It shows that the Etubom and his Chiefs
were concemed by the appearanceof Camerooniansoldiers and police and the threat
that this constitutedto their people, their society, their culture and their allegiances."

(RejoinderofNigeria,para.3.103 .)

52. Similar disturbances ofthe status quo,this time at Abana, were reported in a Nigerian

aide-mémoiredated 19December 1968,in thefollowingterms:

"Reports from the Nigerian Ministry of Defence have indicated that some
Camerounsoldiershave beenmolestingNigerians (soldiersas well as civilians)along
the border between the two countries. On the 11thDecember, 1968, for instance,
Cameroun soldiers were said to have seized three Nigerian soldiers at Abana near

Ikang. The three Nigerian soldiers who were on a river patrol were taken to
Cameroun Republicand their three rifles as well as a flying boat were confiscated.
Reports have also been received that Nigerian villagersat Abana are being forced to
sel1their fish inthe Camerounand pay taxesto the CamerounRepublic.

2. The Nigerian Govemment wouldbe very gratefül if the Govemment of the
Cameroun in the usual fiatemal spirit could investigatethese reports with a view to

taking correctivemeasures so as to prevent any clashes between the soldiersof both
countries along the border. Nigerian soldiers have been given strict orders not to
retaliate. Urgent action will, therefore, be appreciated on the part of the Cameroun
Govemment." (Counter-MemorialofNigeria,Vol. VIII, Ann.NC-M206.)

53. In 1970the Nigerian Governmenthad occasion to protest about Cameroonianactivities

in Abana, a long-established town within Nigerian temtory (Counter-Memorial of Nigeria,

AnnNC-M207). TheNote recountsthe suddenoccupationof Abana by force, the closure ofthe

school, and the detention of the teachers. Like the previous episodethis conduct indicates the

absence of anypre-existingCameroonian administrationor control.

54. From 1973 onwards the evidence suggests that the Govemment of Cameroon had

decided to seek to change the Nigerian characterof the Bakassi region and to attempt to create

evidence of a certain level of Cameroonian presencein the region. As the Court will see, the

Cameroonianpresence was episodicand precarious.

55. A striking developmentwhich involvedthe period 1972 to 1975was the appearanceof

Cameroonian legislation with the purpose of changing the names of towns in the Bakassi

Peninsula. The measures concemedwere as follows. Late in 1972 a Cameroonianofficia1made

proposals for the renaming of towns and villages in the so-called "Idabato District"

(Counter-Memorial of Nigeria, Ann.NC-M 208). The outcome appears to have been a ciraft

PrefectoralOrder, dated31December1973,purportingto change thenamesof theNigerian townsinthe Bakassiregion(Ann.NC-M209). Finally, a definitivePrefectorl rder waspromulgatedin

1975 (Ann.NC-M210).

56.Article 1ofthe instrumentis verysignificant.

"Article 1: The names of al1 the fishing settlements in Idabato District
appearinginColumn1in the followingSchedulehave changedto those appearingin
ColumnII ofthe Schedule."

57.The instrumentprovidesunequivocalproof thatuntil 1973(at the earliest)there was no

Cameroonian claim to adrninister the Bakassi region. Moreover, the claim to change the

long-established Nigerianplace namesinvolvesan egregious attempt tochallengethe legal status

quo (theexercise ofNigeriansovereignty)and the ethniccharacterof the towns (which wasand

remainsNigerianandEfik).

58.TheCameroonianincmions in theperiod 1972and 1973provoked strongprotestsfiom

the traditional authoritiesinbar(that is the Etuboms' Council). Petition of the Etuboms'

Councildated6 July 1973reads(inpart) asfollows:

"PROTESTNOTICEAGAINSTTHEFORCEFULEJECTMENTBYTHE
CAMEROONSGOVERNMENTOFNIGERIANSOFEFIKORTGINFROMLAND
FORMERLYTHE JURISDICTIONOFTHEOBONGOFCALABARNOWBY
LAWTERRITORYOFTHEFEDERATIONOFNIGERIA

The Etuboms'Councilof Calabar,for andonbehalf ofHisHighnesstheObong
of Calabar(nowin traditional seclusion),cravethe indulgenceof His Excellencythe
Govemorof South Eastern Stateof the FederationofNigeria,oughthe goodoffices
oftheHonourablethe CommissionerforHomeAffairsand SocialWelfare, toregister
this PROTEST to the Head of State of the Federal Military Governmentof the
Federationof Nigeria againstthe conductof the CameroonsGovemmentwhichhas,
unilaterally, ejectedthe personsof Efikorigin fiomthe BAKASSIPENINSULAand

the land adjacentto the AKPAYAFE RIVER which were formerly the natural
jurisdictionofHis Highnessthe ObongofCalabarandnow partofthe FEDERATION
OFNIGERIA.

1. It has been authoritatively reported(The Nigerian Chronicle, Monday,
2July 1973-No. 124)that Nigerianfishermenliving in fivevillages alongthe
NigerianICameroonborder have been ejected andwarned never to corneback

unlesswithCameroonvisa." (Counter-MemorialofNigeria,Ann.NC-M211.)

59. In 1973 there was also a Petition fiom the Atabong Welfare Associationbased in

Calabar,whichcomplained ofharassmentfromCameroonian gendarmes.This is in tab 20. The

Petitionwasaddressedto the Honourable Commissioner forHome Affairs andSocial Welfareof

the South-Eastern State of Nigeria, representing the Military Govemor of the State(Counter-Memorialof Nigeria, Ann.NC-M212). The key descriptions of the harassment are as

follows:

"We count on His Excellency's assistance and CO-operationin fieeing the
Atabongand the entire Efiat people fiom humiliation and defilementin the hands of
the Cameroun gendarmesand the oppressive and repressive measures being metted
[sic] outto our peopleby the Camerouns ArmedForcesstationed at Atabong Fishing
Port.

The Atabongpeople, like al1other South-Easterners, sufferedmuch during the
period of the Civil War but their sufferingstoday appearunjustified. We are treated
like a people in a Police State, and virtually compelledto live in a military camp,
being denied fieedom of movement. Our wives are not treated as women since any
gendarmecan seize a woman's wrapper on the road leavingher half-clad or naked if
he likesthe cloth. They enter a man's house and rapethe wife in thepresence of the

husband and get the husband beaten to the point of death at the slightest sign of
protest. These beastly men have no regards for human dignity and their District
Officers appear to have no powers over them. They beat one of our sons to death
about ayear ago, andasrecentlyasJanuq, 1973they beatanotherofour sonsalmost
to deathand had carriedhim awayto Camerouns hisfatestill unknownto us today.

These may sound like stories but they are daily occurrencesat Atabong on the
Bakasi Peninsula. There could have been several exhibits as proofs of these brutal

acts ifAtabong peoplehad the chanceof bringing victimsto Calabaror Oron. People
trying tobring up victims evenonpretext of comingto the hospital fortreatrnent have
been interceptedandbeaten up."

60. In 1973 for the first time Cameroonian officials attempted to collect land rents fiom

Atabong and other Nigeriantowns. The inhabitantsrefused to pay and complainedthrough their

Chiefs to the Nigerian Embassy in Yaoundé (Counter-Mernorialof Nigeria, Ann.NC-M 213).

Theirparticular complaintwas that no one "fiom time immemorial" hadeverasked the inhabitants

to pay landrent.

61. Further episodesof harassmentby Cameroonian policeand armedforces took place in

1974and 1976and are describedin theCounter-Memorialatpages 272to 279.

62. This picture is broadly replicated in the sphere of taxation. The evidence relating to

taxation is of considerable importance andit reflectsthe political and socialrealities of the region.

Thisbeing so,with your permission,Mr.President,1shall examinethe evidencein somedetail.

63. Of particular evidential value is the collection of tax fiom residents of the Bakassi

Peninsulabythe Cross River State ofNigeria (CalabarTaxDivision) andMbo Local Government

(Akwa Ibom State). The evidencetakesthe form of the NominalRoll of taxpayerswhopaid their

taxes in Akpabuyo Tax District in Calabar Tax Division of South-EasternState. Copies of thisinformation(both inmanuscriptand in typescript)and a selectionofrelated individualtax receipts,

relatingto the fiscal year 1967to 1968,canbe found at AnnexesNC-M 165andNC-M 166ofthe

Counter-Memorial of Nigeria.This evidencewas providedby the Officeof the Govemor of Cross

River State.

64.TheBakassi toms involved areasfollowsandare ontab21 (it can'tbeonthe screen):

- AkwaTown

- ArchibongTown

- MbenMong

- Nwanyo

- Atabong,and

- Abana.

65. Evidence in the form of the Intemal Revenue Stock and Distribution Register

(EasternNigeria) establishesthat, in the fiscalyear 1969to 1970, incometaxwas being collected

in Abanaon the Bakassi Peninsula (Counter-Memorialof NigeriaA , nn.NC-M 169,and Rejoinder

of Nigeria,Ann.NR 59).

66. The taxable Population Registerfor Effiat MboClan in Oron LGA (withinAkwaIbom

State)fortheyear 1987includesthe Bakassitowns andvillages of IneEkpo, Abana,Ine Atayo,Ine

Akpak and Ine Odiong(RejoinderofNigeria,Ann.NR 60).

67. There canbe no doubtthat the imposition of taxesis recognizedby tribunalsas evidence

of sovereignty. This Court accepted evidencefthe impositionof localand othertaxes as evidence

of title in thenquiersandEcrehoscase(I.C.J. Reports1953,pp. 65,69). Evidenceof taxation

was regardedas relevantby the Court in its Advisory Opinionconcerning WesternSahara(I.C.J.

Reports1975,pp. 45-47, paras.99-103),andalso by the Court of Arbitrationinthe Rann ofKutch

case (ILR,Vol. 50,p. 1at p. 461).

68.Theevidence available indicatesthatthe inhabitantsof theBakassiregionhabituallypaid

taxes to the Nigerian authoritiesof the CrossRiver Stateand Akwa IbomState. This appearsfrom

the followingcontemporaryMgerianreportof an attemptby officiaisof Cameroonto collecttaxes

fiom residentsof Archibong and Akwain 1984. The report, addressedto Force Headquartersin

Lagos,anddated28 September1984reads,in materialpart,as follows: ''NIGERIAN/CAMEROON BORDER
1wishto bringthefollowingincidentto yournotice forurgentattention.

2. On the 26th September, 1984 at 1500hours, sevenpersons of Archibongand
Akwavillagesin OdukpaniLocalGovemmentAreaof CrossRiver Statereported
to the Police at Ikang with a document addressed to each of them by a
CameroonianDivisional Officerstationedat Isangele. A photo-copyof thesaid
documentis attached. Thesevillagesarejust eightkilometresfrom Ikangtown.

From their names 'Archibong'and 'Akwa' which are Nigerians, 1 have the
feeling that the villages are part of Nigeria. In a nutshell, the content of the
documentisan officia1invitationbythe Cameroongovernmentofficial.

3. The sevenNigerianswhoarerecipientsof this invitation arelaw abidingcitizens
and ordinarilyreside inthesevillages. They havenothingto do whatsoeverwith
the administration ofthe Cameroongovemment. It is hazardhowever that the

invitationofthe Nigenansto Isangelemaybe forthe paymentof taxes. But1will
want it knownthat hitherto,these Nigerianspaytheir taxesto Nigeria authority.
The villagers expressed surprise and fear at the invitation and regard it as a
calculated attempt byCameroongovemmentto extendits influence and control
overthe area.

[Thisin 1984.1

4. Although 1am not detailedin the geographicalboundary,data of the area,but 1

am of the view that the presence of the Cameroon officials in these villages
violatesourtemtorial integrity." (RejoinderofNigeria,Ann.NR 61.)

ThisReportwas signedby the ComrnissionerofPolice ofCrossRiver State.

69. Inspite of a degree of interferencefrom Cameroonofficials,the authonties of Cross

River Statehave continuedto exercisethe power of taxationin the Bakassi regionon a routine

basis; 1referto tab 22inthe folder. Tax wascollectedby CrossRiverState andAkpabuyo Local

Govemment Authority(LGA) between 1989 and 1994: 1refer here tothe receipts,"Minimum

Income Tax Tickets" and "GeneralRate Tickets", relating to Abana; in Annex NR 62 of the

RejoinderofNigeria,forexample.

70.TheEffiat-MboLocal GovemmentAreaimposedtaxeson Bakassi villagesinthe area of

its competence throughits task force: 1 refer tothe Registerfor GeneralRate Ticketsissuedin

1990(Annex NR 63).

71. Recent information from the six Clan Heads having authority in the ~akassi toms

confirms that the residents originallypaid tax to Akpabuyo LGA,MboLGA and OkoboLGA.

Since 1996, they have al1 paid taxes to the BakassiLGA: 1 refer to the Nigerian Rejoinder

@p.195-213),and alsoto tab 22 andthegraphiconthe screen. 72. The CarneroonGovernmentaccepts that the power to levy taxes is one of the most

significant manifestationoftitle toerritory: 1referto theMemorialat page493, paragraph4.446.

In support of its assertionthat this power has been exercised in the Bakassi region only two

documentsareproduced. The first is a Pol1TaxRoll forthe fiscal year 1981-1982. In the text of

the Memonal (p. 494, para.4.448) this document(at Ann.MC 255) is used as the basis for the

following assertion:

"The taxes levied in the various fisheries, particularly those at Idabato1,
IdabatoII, Jabane1,JabaneII, Naumsi Wan, Komboa Mpungu, Forisane, Kombo a
Ngonja, Komboa Monjo, Kombo a Jane, Ine Akarika,Komboa Kiase, Kombo
Abedimo,Kombo aBilla,arnountedto 9,450,000FCFAfor the 1980-1982accounting
period." (Memorialof Cameroon,Ann.255.)

73. Twopoints standout. In the first place,no evidenceis providedrelatingto the period

1960 to 1980. And, secondly, onlyseven of the places specifiedhave beenclearly identifiedby

Cameroonas being withi the Bakassiregion: that is, Idabato1 andII, Jabane1andII, Kombo

Abedimo,Nawnsi Wan,and Forisane. Some of these names are the Cameroonian locations for

WestandEastAtabong,AbanaandIneIkoi.

74. The Cameroon Reply invokes a second document, a list of tax collectors for the

commune of Tiko for the year 1972to 1973 (Ann.RC34). The problemwith this document,

Mr.President,is that thecommuneof Tiko is not locatedin or anywherenear the Bakassiregion,

ascan be seenon the graphicin tab 23presentlyonthe screen.

75. Inthe result thereis only one document which refers,at leastin part, tothe taxationof

towns and villages in Bakassi,and this relates to a singletax year, 1981-1982. This does not

constitute evidenceof apattern, muchless a consistentpattern, of Stateactivity. Moreover, the

fragrnentaryand unreliableevidenceofferedby Camerooncontrastswiththe evidenceof Nigerian

taxcollectionsince the 1960s.

76. The evidence supportsthe view that Cameroonefforts to collecttaxes were episodic,

deeplyresentedby theNigerianinhabitantsofBakassi, andconstitutednomore thanillegalacts of

harassment. As the ClanHeadshaveindicated,the inhabitantshave neverpaid taxesto Cameroon

exceptintheconsequenceof threatsofforce.

77.Theoverall pictureis affirmedby the chronologyofthe materials advancedon thepartof

Cameroonto support its claimto theBakassi Peninsula.Thepassagesdevotedto evidenceof actsof administrationin the CameroonMemorialat pages490 to 496,relate only to 1968and later,and

themajority of itemsrelatetothe years 1976onwards.

78. The same picture emerges fiom the relevant section of the Cameroon Reply, at

paragraphs 5.218to 5.232. The contentofthis sectioncan be analysedbriefly.

79.Paragraph5.218. This refersbackto therelevantpassagesin the Memorial andincludes

thefollowingpassage:

"Lesparticularités géographiques (clima rte,liej et humaines(présence de
nombreuxhabitantsd'originenigériane) n'ontpas empêchlé e Cameround'exercersa

souveraineté de manière continueetpaczjiquedansl'ensemblede lapéninsule .

80. Paragraph5.219. This makes the baseless assertionthat Nigeria accepts that, at least

since1973,Cameroonhad the intentionto act à titredesouverainin Bakassi.

81.Paragraph5.220. Thisrepeatsthe sameassertion.

82.Paragraph5.221. This simplyreaffims thematerialscontainedintheMemorial.

83. Paragraph5.222 andparagraphs5.240 to 5.248. Here, as evidence of acquiescence,

Cameroon refers to an episode in which a local dispute between Otu and Ekang was settled,

allegedly in favour of Cameroon, in 1962. This argument is difficult to follow as a matter of

principle. But in any event the evidence is worthless because the two locations referred to are

outsideand fartothe northofthe Bakassiregion: 1refer to thegraphicin tab 24which is presently

on thescreen.

84. Paragraphs5.223 to 5.225. The items invoked relate to the penod November 1968to

January 1969. The principalitem is a documentin English. It is an EconomicReport for Ndian

Division of Cameroon dated 30November 1968 (AnnRC 17). This document refers to the

Nigeriancharacterof the regionand affirmsthat "nearly al1the settlers in the region are Nigerians

andconsequentlyspeakNigerianlanguagesanduseNigerian currency".

85. Paragraph5.226. This refers to a report by a Cameroonian officia1 dated

28February 1969(Ann RC 18). The text of the reportmakes it abundantlyclearthat Atabongand

associated villageshad not hitherto been willing to pay taxes to Camerooniancollectorsbecause

thepopulationwasNigerian anddidnotrecognizethe regionasapart of Cameroon.

86.Paragraph5.227. The materials invokedhere relateto 1971(Ann.RC28). 87. Paragraph 5.228.
The materials invoked here relate to the year 1972 to 1973

(Ann.RC 34). However,they donotconcem locations inBakassi.

88. Paragraph 5.229. The item here relates to 1976 (Ann.RC 44), but once again the

locationsreferredto arenot in Bakassi.

89. Paragraph 5.230. 'fie documentinvokedrefersto locations whichare notto be foundin

the BakassiPeninsula (Ann.RC 126).

90. Paragraph 5.231. Thedocuments referred to here relate to the year 1988:this is the

document Annex RC 180in the Reply of Cameroon. These documents confirm the absence of

services, including the absence of posts and communications. Reference is also made in this

Annex,but not in the textof the Reply,to the existenceof a primary school. This is the first such

reference in the documentsproduced by Cameroon,and the document is dated 15October 1988,

notlong before these proceedingsbegan.

91. Paragraph 5.232. The documents mentioned here are dated 28 September 1992and

30June 1994 (Ann.RC 197),andarepurely programmatic incharacter.

92. In relation to the issue of local administration,therelevant passages of the Memorialof

Carneroonhave been analysed in the Counter-Memorialat page 264. It is there pointed outthat

there is an absence ofproof of actual acts of administration. The CameroonReply does not add

very much; 1 refer to pages 307 to 310. Thus,the materials relied upon by Cameroon in the

context ofthe evidence oflocal administrationdemonstratethatthere waslittle or norealiy behind

the legislationpurportingto establishan administration.

93. In this context it is helpful to recall the "fundamental principle" propounded by

Sir GeraldFitzmaurice according to which "greater probative force" is "attributable to a State's

acts and conduct than to its professions" (British Year Book,Vol. 32 (1955-1956),pp. 63-64). As

Fitzmauricepoints out,the Courtin the Minquierscase laidstress on the concreteevidence"which

relates directlyto the possession of the... groups" (I.C.J.Reports 1953, p. 55.) ~uch of the

Carneroonianevidence of administration is not conerete but abstract, as the documents 1 have

analysed clearlydemonstrate.

94. The importanceof stabilityin boundarymatters is often stressedand the Governmentof

Nigeria has its own major concerns in this regard. The recognition of the political, socialandeconomicstatus quo in the Bakassi region by the Court will strongly militate in favour of the

continuity andstabilityinthe affairsoftheregion,including theadjacentFederalStatesofNigeria.

95.1havenow completedthe analysisoftheweaknessofthe Cameroonianclaimto Bakassi

andmustsoonturnto thepositivecase insupportofNigeriantitle.

96. However,it isnecessaryfirstof al1to dealwithcertain preliminaryquestions.

Theprincipleofutipossidetis

97. In herMemorial Cameroonhassoughtto invokethe principleutipossidetis in supportof

her case. The appropriate role of utipossidetis in these proceedingswill be examinedby my

distinguishedfiiend and colleague ProfessorAbi-Saabon Monday. As he will demonstrate,the

principleof utipossidetisprovidesnoassistancetothe Camerooniancase.

Theentitlementof Nigeriais notaffectedby theMarouaDeclaration

98. Thenext preliminaryquestionconcemsthe MarouaDeclaration. Inmy submission the

entitlement ofNigeriaisnotprejudicedbythe MarouaDeclaration.

99. In theperiod beginningin 1970the GovermnentsofNigeria andCameroon engagedin a

seriesof bilateralmeetings for thepurposeof settlingoutstandingmaritimeboundaryissues. The

followinginstrumentsresultedfiomthisseriesoftalks:

(a) Declarationof the Joint Nigeria-Cameroon Boundary Commission L,agos, 23 October1970

(PreliminaryObjectionsofNigeria,Ann.NP0 16).

(b) Declarationof the Joint Nigerian-Cameroon Boundary Commission, Yaoundé 4 ,April 1971

(Ann.NP0 19).

(c) Declaration of the Joint Nigeria-Cameroon Boundary Commission at Lagos, 21June 1971

(Ann.NP0 21).

(4 Joint Communiqué,Heads of StatM e eetingatGaroua,4 to 6August 1972(Ann.NP0 23).

(e) Joint Communiqué,Heads of StatM e eetingat Kano,1 September 1974(Ann.NP0 24).

100. Thissequenceof meetingsis significantin that it clearlyestablishesthe consistentand ,

constructivecontactsbetweenthetwoGovemments,both atthe Head ofStatelevelandatthe level

ofexperts. 101. The Governmentof Cameroonis now contendingthat the Declaration adoptedby the

Heads of State at Maroua on 1June 1975 (Counter-Memorialof Nigeria, Ann.NC-M 143) is

conclusive of the question of title to Balcassi. In the first place it was not binding legally upon

Nigeria because,under the 1963Constitutionin force at the materialtime, GeneralGowondid not

havethe powerto commithis Governmentwithoutthe approval ofthe Supreme Military Council,

which constituted the Govemment of Nigeria. The pertinent legislation of the Military

Administration of 1966 and 1967 did not abrogate the 1963Constitution and in its several

provisionsreferenceis madeto the 1963Constitutionas the Grundnorm.It is necessaryto interject

here the fact that the pertinent constitutional documentswere suppliedto the Court atthe time of

the filing oftheRejoinder.

102. In any event thesame legislation requiredthe publication of any decreemade by the

Supreme Military Council in the Federal Gazette. The so-called Maroua Declarationwas not

published intheFederal Gazetteandthuslackedthe force oflaw.

103.Inthe circurnstancesand in view of the series of important meetings involvingthe two

Heads of Stateand General Gowon's earlierdenialof the binding characterof the chart signedby

him at Yaoundéon the groundthat it had not beenapprovedby the Supreme Military Council, the

Presidentof Cameroonmusthave beenawareby 1975of theconstitutionalconstraints underwhich

GeneralGowon wasexercisinghis authority.

104. In this context, the letter sent by GeneralGowon to PresidentAhidjo on

23August 1974 (Rejoinder of Nigeria, Ann. NR 12)- ninemonths before the Maroua

Declaration- is of substantialprobative value. The Nigerian Head ofState began by sayingthat

he was writing"on the subject of the difficultiesthat arise fromtime to time in the border areasof

Nigeriaand Cameroun".

In paragraphthree ofthe letter,GeneralGowoninformedPresident Ahidjo:

"You will recall, Mr. President,that the importantquestion of demarcatingthe
borders between Ourtw.0 countries was discussed at length during our meeting in
Garoua. 1still believethat the functionof thejoint commission ofexpertsestablished
to delineate the international boundary between our two countries, was to make
recommendations on the basis of their technical examination of the situation, for
considerationby Ourtwo Governrnents. As a technical commission,their views and
recommendations must'besubject to the agreement of the two Governmentswhich
appointed themin the first place. You will also recall that1explained in Garouathat the proposals of the experts based on the documents they prepared on the
4th April 1971,were not acceptableto the Nigerian Govemment. It hasalways been
my beliefthat we cm, both, together re-examinethe situationand reach an appropriate
and acceptabledecisiononthe matter."

105.In this letter, as the Court willreadily appreciate, GeneralGowonwas emphasizingthe

followingpointsto President Ahidjo:

(i) the question of boundary demarcation between Nigeriaand Carneroonis an "important

question";

(ii) the function of the commission of experts was to make recomrnendations for the

considerationofthetwo govemments;

(iii) the proposalsof the expertsbasedon the documentsthey preparedon 4 April 1971were

not acceptableto theNigerian Govemment;

(iv) both govemmentsmust re-examinethe situation andreach an appropriateagreementon

the matter; and

(v) that the arrangements which might be agreed between them were subject to the

subsequentandseparateapprovalof the'WigerianGovemment".

106. In the light of this sequence of meetings,and particularly in view of the terms of

GeneralGowon's letter, when President Ahidjo participatedin the talks at Maroua, he must have

appreciated the constitutional constraintsunder which GeneralGowon was acting. Under the

Nigerian Constitutionin force at the relevant time June 1975- executive acts were in general

to be carried out by the SupremeMilitaryCouncil or subject to its approval. States are normally

expectedto follow legislativeand constitutional developmentsin neighbouring States which have

an impact upon the inter-State relations ofthose States. Few limits can be more importantthan

thoseaffectingthetreaty-makingpower.

107.The arrangements prevailing within Nigeriawere familiarto President Ahidjo, as there

had beena seriesof previousdealingswithNigeria. As the Courtwill readilyrecall, Article46 of

the ViennaConventiononthe Law of Treatiesprovidesas follows:

"1. A Statemay not invokethe fact thatits consentto be boundby a treaty has
been expressedin violation of a provision ofits intemal law regarding competenceto
conclude treaties asinvalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and
concernedarule of itsintemal lawof fundamental importance. 2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State
conductingitself inthe matterinaccordancewith normalpracticeandin goodfaith."

Even if there is a presurnptionthat a Head of State is fully competent to commit his State,

Article46 showsthat thispresurnptionisrebuttable.

108.BothCameroonand Nigeriaare partiesto the Viema Convention which,in any event,

representsthestandardof generalinternationallaw. In the circumstancesPresidentAhidjoand his

govemmentwouldbe familiarwiththe prevailingpractice in the military govermnentof Nigeria

and it would have been "objectively evident" that GeneralGowon did not have unrestricted

authority.

109.Cameroonsuggests,intheReply ofCameroon,paragraph8.43,and in the firstroundof

these hearings,that Nigeria'sdenialthat any internationalcomrnitmentresulted fiom the Maroua

DeclarationisinconsistentwithArticle 7 of the Vienna Conventionon theLaw ofTreaties. Inmy

submission,Cameroonismistakenasto the significanceofthisArticle.

Article7reads,inrelevantparts,as follows:

"1. A person is considered as representing a State for [certain specified
purposes]if:

(a) heproducesappropriatefullpowers;

2. In virtue of their functionsand without havingto produce full powers,the
followingare considered as representingtheirState:

(a) Headsof State,HeadsofGovemment, ..."

110. ThisArticle is solelyconcemedwiththe way in whicha person'sfunctionas a StateS

representativeis established. Itdoesnot dealwiththe separatequestionofthe extentof his powers

whenexercisingthat representativefunction,whichis the matterdealtwithin Article46.

111.Article7 providesthat a person'srepresentativecapacityis normally establishedbythe

productionof "full powers". Despiteits name, "full powers"is the name given to a document,

being adocumentwhich concernsonlythe questionof representativecapacity. Thisis clearfiom

Article2.1 (c),which reads:

"(c) 'fullpowers' means a document emanating fiom the competent authorito yf a
Statedesignatinga personor personsto representthe State for [certainspecific

purposes]." 112.Article7, paragraph 2,doesnotprovidethat aHeadof Statenecessarilyandas a matter

of substance possessesthe fullest possible range of powers to commithis State; it only provides

thathe, like certainotherhighofficiaisof State,becauseof his office,doesnotneed to producethis

particular docurnentary evidence of his representative capacity. His representative capacity,

nonnally established by producing such a document, is evident fiom the office he holds. His

powers as arepresentativearea separatematter.

113. The Government of Nigeria has at no stage, whether within the Federal Executive

Councilor the meetings of the Supreme Military Council, or of its successor,the Armed Forces

RulingCouncil,or the Provisional Ruling Councilor any legislative body, acceptedthat Nigeria

was bound by the Maroua Declaration. At a meeting between the two Heads of State on 7 to

9 August1977, GeneralObasanjo informed President Ahidjo that Nigeria did not accept the

MarouaDeclaration. GeneralObasanjoalsotold PresidentAhidjothat, as NigerianHeadof State,

he wasa tmstee of Nigerian propem, both land and territorial waters, and he could not alienate

themor givethemawayunconstitutionally. He explainedthatthe Declaration had notbeenratified

by the Supreme Military Council, and was therefore regarded as a nullity by Nigeria.

PresidentAhidjo asked what was therefore to be done. GeneralObasanjo replied that,since

PresidentAhidjowas not preparedto renegotiate, themattershouldbe leftto be dealtwithby their

successors,andthe issuewasleft open.

114. It is also necessaryto refer to the initialled Minutesof the meetingsheld in Yaoundé

between 28 and 29 August 1991and from 11 to 13August 1993. In the minutes of the 1991

meetingthe followingpassagesappear:

"The Validity ofthe MarouaDeclaration

"The Nigerian side underscoredthe importance ofthis matter and pointedout
that the position of the Nigerian Governmenton this questionis well known by the
Carneroon Govemment. The Nigerian delegation indicatedthat as far as the Maroua

Declarationis concemed,the Nigerian Govemmentnever ratified the agreement and
consequently,in Nigeria'sview, itisnot bindingonNigeria.

TheMinutescontinue:

"TheCameroonianside took noteof theNigerian position but statedin itsview,
that the said declaration is valid and the Carneroon Govemment has never been
formallynotifiedoftheNigerianposition. TheNigerian sideunderscoredthe necessityfor the two countriesto agree on a
realisticframeworkfornegotiations atthemeeting scheduledfor Abuja."

Mr. President, if 1could havejust another five minutes, 1will be at the end of a section. Thank

you.

115. On page 4 of the Minutes of the 13August 1993 meeting, the third and fourth

paragraphsareveryclear:

"As regards the Maritime Sector of the border, the Nigerian Delegation
re-affirmedthe non-recognition of theMarouaDeclarationof 1975onthe groundthat
it was not ratified. The Cameroonian Delegationre-affinned the validity of the
Maroua Declaration. For her, the Declarationwas a result of a longnegotiation and
detailedworkby experts.

After a long and inconclusive discussion, which re-established the parallel
positions of the two parties, it was agreed that the matter be submitted to the two

Heads of Delegation for consideration." (Preliminary Objections of Nigeria,
Ann.NP0 55.)

It is clear fiomthese Minutes that Nigeria has never acceptedthat she is bound by the Maroua

Declaration.

116.Mr. President,the Declaration ofMarouamust be assessed in thegeneral contextof the

bilateral relationsbetween Carneroonand Nigeria. Inthe relevantperiod, and since independence,

Nigeria has considered Bakassito be Nigerian.

117. In the light of the circumstances,and the general course of dealing betweenthe two

Govemmentsin the period concerned,theGovernrnentof Cameroon,accordingto an objectivetest

based upon theprovisions of the Vienna Convention, either lcnew or, conducting itself in a

normally prudentmanner, should have known that GeneralGowon did not have the authority to

makelegallybindingcomrnitmentswithout referenceback to theNigerian Government.

118. The Cameroon Govemmentmakes the claim, in somewhat obscure terms, that the

Heads of State had concluded a binding agreement at YaoundéII on 4 April 1971. 1refer to the

Memorial and the Reply (Memorial of Cameroon, pp. 130-131, paras 2.219-2.225; Reply of

Cameroon, pp. 361-362,paras8.10-8.12; and pp. 365-366, paras. 8.26-8.28). Nigeria does not

acceptthis construction of themeeting at Yaoundéand it is contradictedby the terms of the letter

from General Gowon to President Ahidjo dated 23 August 1974 (Rejoinder of Nigeria,

Ann.NR 12). The languageofthe second Declarationof Yaoundé,which is AnnexNP0 19ofthe

Preliminary Objectionsof Nigeria, makesit very clearthat the meeting formedpart of an ongoingprogramme of meetings relating to the maritime boundary, and that the matter was subject to

furtherdiscussion at subsequentmeetings.

119. It is surely significant that the text of the Declaration makes no reference to a

disposition of land territory. This constructionof the transactionis confirmedby the text of the

contemporaneousJoint Communiqué(Counter-Memorialof Nigeria, Ann.NC-M 145)and also by

the intemalNigerianbrief on the forthcoming meeting,dated 20 May 1975 (Counter-Memorial of

Nigeria,Ann.NC-M 144). Andit is to be noted that ProfessorTomuschatin his speechreferredto

the MarouaDeclaration exclusivelyinthe context ofthemaritimeboundary(CR 200216,p. 1).

120. In assessing the significance of the Maroua Declaration, it is necessary to see the

episodein the general contextofrelationsbetween thetwo Statesand the impressive evidenceof a

long existing Nigerian administrationin the Bakassi Peninsula. Mr. President, therecan be no

presumption in favour of relinquishmentof title toenitory. More particularly, there can be no

presumption that, as an incidental result of the series of meetings conceming the maritime

boundary, Nigeria was surrendering a significant tract of tenitory which was in her lawfül

possessionandpopulated byNigerians.

Mr.President,that wouldbe convenient,if you agreeto break,to havethepause café.

Le PRESIDENT :Je vous remercie,Monsieur le professeur. La Cour suspend pour une

dizainede minutes.

L'audience estsuspenduede II h25 à II h35.

Le PRESIDENT : Veuillez vous asseoir. Je donne a nouveau la parole au professeur

Ian Brownlieau nomde la RépubliqueféderaleduNigéria.

Mr.BROWNLIE:

TheUnitedNationsPlebisciteof 1961

121.Mr. President, distinguishedMembers ofthe Court,in herMemorialCameroonseeks to

establishthat the organization ofthe plebiscitein the Southem Cameroonswas onthe basisthat the

electoraldistrict of Victoria South-Westincluded the BakassiPeninsula:1refer to the Memorial,

paragraph3.237,andmap M16. 122.Inthe relevantpassage Cameroonis assertingthat the plebiscite relatingto the Southem

Cameroonsencompassedthe Bakassi Peninsula. The evidence, however, simply doesnot support

thisassertion.

123. There is no documentaryevidence which indicates that the population ofthe Bakassi

townsand villagestook partin the UnitedNations plebiscite which decidedthe futurestatus of the

SouthemCameroons. Referencemaybe made tothefollowingofficia1documents(among others):

(i) Report of the UnitedNations Commissionerfor the Supervision ofthe Plebiscites in the

Southem and Northern Parts of the Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United

KingdomAdministration (UnitedNationsdoc.Tl1556dated 3 April 1961).

(ii) Report on the Plebiscite held in the Southem Cameroons on 11February1961, by the

PlebisciteAdministrator,Mr. H. Childs.

124. There is no single item in these two reports which establishesthat the plebiscite was

held in Bakassi. In paragraph99 of the report of 3 April 1961 there is a description of the

plebiscite districtown asVictoria South-West. In the description ofthis area referenceis made

to the Bakolle-Clan and other clans and to the Bambuka, Bota, Bimbia and Victoria Village

Groups. As map M9 of the Cameroons Memorial indicates,none of these areas is sited in the

Bakassi Peninsula. MapM9 does not show Bambuka, but there is no such settlement in the

Bakassi region. The tribal affiliations of al1these areas are not Efik, unlike the Bakassi people.

(See E.Ardener, in Ardener,Ardener and Warmington,Plantation and Villagein the Cameroons,

London,1960,p. 272 (andtable, p. 412).)

125. The report of 3 April 1961 confirms that there were 13polling stations in Victoria

South-West. However, there is no evidence of the existence of polling stations in Bakassi. In

addition,there is evidencefromthe ClanHeads withauthority in respect of the Bakassitowns and

villagesthat the inhabitantsdidnot participatein theplebiscite 1refer to the Appendix, Nigerian

Rejoinder,at pages 195to 213..

126. The issue of the plebiscite is given -prominence in the Cameroon Memorial

(paras.3.230-3.239 and 3.35) and it is necessary to keep the question in an appropriate Iegal

perspective. The plebiscite held on 12February 1961 in the Southern Cameroons, like other

plebiscites, couldnot affect the alignment of the relevant boundaries as such, as Cameroonrecognizeselsewhere. 1refer to theCameroonMemorial,page 157,at paragraph3.35. Nor could

such aplebiscitepresent a conclusive impedimentto a process ocfonsolidationof title or,if such a

processwere begiming, to itsdevelopment inthe future.

127. Whenthe question ofthe plebisciteis properly relatedto the developmentof title by

consolidation, theabsenceof participationbythe peopleof the Bakassiregionis consistentwiththe

overallpictureof affiliati-n political, socialandeconomic- withthe mainlandofNigeria.

128.Theseconsiderationsprovidethe necessary contextin which the speech ofmy fiiend,

Malcolm Shaw,in the first round, is to be assessed (see CR200211, pp.63-65, paras.12-18).

Professor Shawmadereferenceto variousofficia1documents,includingthe Exchangeof Notesof

29 May 1961 betweenthe Federation of Nigeriaand the UnitedKingdom - which in any event

relates exclusivelyto the NorthemCameroons. Suchdocuments donot assistCameroonbecause

theybegthe question,which iswhether Bakassiwas includedinNigeria ornot.

129.As 1havepointed out already, the key United Nationrseports onthe plebisciteprovide

no evidencethat thepopulationof the Bakassiregionparticipatedin the plebiscite. Cameroonhas

invoked a map of Southem Cameroons producedby the United Nations,which includes the

following disclaimer: "The boundariesshownon this map do not imply officialendorsementor

acceptanceby the United Nations." This is in the Memorial,mapM16. Other UnitedNations

maps of SouîhemCameroonsproducedin the sameyear- 1960 - cq a similar disclaimer.In

view ofthe provisothe mapswouldnot be opposableto Nigeriaand thus therewouldbe nobasis

for aprotestfiomNigeria.

130.It is also necessaryto recall theprinciple of international law accordto which the

evidence of maps can only have a corroborativeor secondaryrole in relation to more reliable

evidence,suchasdocurnentaryevidence,andinthiscase,alsothe evidenceoflocal knowledge and

repute derivingfiom the BakassiClan Heads. This principlehas been endorsedin the following

decisionsof ais Court:

(i) the Chamberof the Court in the Frontier Disputecase (I.C.J. Reports 1986,para. 56);

and

(ii) the full Court in the case conceming Kasikili/SeduduIsland (I.C.J. Reports 1999,

paras.84and 87). 131. Moreover,there can be no question of the UnitedNations graphic presently in issue

having a primary role when it carries a strongly worded disclaimer,expressly relating to the

depictionof boundaries.

Thegrantingofoil explorationpermits

132. In the Reply, the Government of Cameroon appears to rely upon the granting of oil

licences as evidenceof sovereignty in relation to the Bakassi Peninsula:1 refer to the Reply, at

pages244 to 245 (paras 5.14-5.16).
However, the Government of Cameroon provides no

clarificationof the legal position,which was that neitherNigeria nor Carneroon,in their practice,

regardedthe incidenceof oil-relatedactivitiesas conclusive oftheissue of sovereignty.

133. The pertinent documents have been examined in the Nigerian Rejoinder, at

paragraphs3.264to 3.274.

134.Therecords of meetingsandthe pattem of oil concessionsin general have reflected the

régimeof whatmaybe descrïbedas concerted indecisionin relationto land tenitory. Theoffshore

areasare resource-related. The BakassiPeninsulais inhabited,has been inhabited for generations,

and is the home of 156,000Nigerians. If oil explorationon the mainlandhad been prejudicial to

title, itwould havealsobeenprejudicialto therightsof a settled population ofNigerians.

135. The attitude ofthe two Parties is apparentfiom the fact that it was not uncornmonfor

concessionblocksto be unrelatedin dimension toany claimed alignment. Thusimmediately after

independence,block OML 10,granted by Nigeria to Shell/BP, extended fkom the mainland of

Nigeria across Bakassi and eastwards across the Rio delRey into Cameroon, as can be seen on

tab25and onthescreen.

136. The licensing pattem in the Bakassi region is referred to in the Rejoinder. Existing

wellshave beencapped andthe onshoredevelopmentshave beendisappointingboth interms of oil

andgas. Thetrend ofopinionwithin theoil industryappearstobe to the effectthat exploration has

beenentirely without prejudiceto the issue of sovereignty. Moreover,in view of the existenceof

the dispute relating to Bakassi, itis not surprising that the degree of activity on the Bakassi

Peninsula was minimal when comparedwith the production offshore. Ninety-five per cent of

Cameroonianoilcornesfiomthe offshore area. 137. In the CameroonReply the point is made that the granting of concessions in the

disputedarea by Cameroondidnot lead to anyprotestson the part ofNigeria(p. 244, para.5.16).

The absence of protests is, of course, irrelevantgiven that the petroleum-relatedactivities were

inconclusiveinthecontextoftheincidenceoftitleto territoy.

138.In anyeventthe GovernmentofCameroonexpressly recognizes thatitdidnot protestin

response to Nigerian oil activities: 1 refer here to the Reply, paragraphs9.114 and9.115.

Cameroon seeks to explain her silence by reference to the arrangementsagreed at Abuja on

19December 1991 (Preliminary Objections of Nigeria, Ann.NP0 54), according to which

information would be given of any action that might cause a nuisance. This reasoning is

unconvincing. Therewas no obligationto givenotice of concessions. The fact is that activities

mightbepursuedbutwithoutprejudiceto questionsoftitle andsubjectto theultimate settlementof

the dispute.

139. Existing oil activitiwhich involveoverflightand related operationsare subject tothe

permissionandCO-operation ofthe localNigenan securityforces.

140.In therecent arbitrationbetweenEritrea and Yemen relating to sovereigntyoverislands

in the Red Sea the Tribunal, after an exhaustiveexamination of the complexconcessionhistory,

anived at certainconclusionswhich,so farasmaterialforpresentpurposes,wereas follows:

"437.The offshorepetroleumcontracts enteredinto by Yemen, and byEthiopia
and Eritrea, fail to establishor significantly strengthenthe claims of either party to

sovereigntyoverthedisputed islands.

439. In the courseof the implementationofthe petroleurn contracts,significant
acts occurredunder stateauthority whichrequire further weighing andevaluationby
the Tribunal." (ILR,Vol.114,p. 114.)

141. The principal conclusion is significantnot least becausethe Court of Arbitrationhad

devoted much effortto the examinationof thegrantingof concessions. Andyet the outcomewas

characterizedby a degreeof cautionon thepartof the Tribunal. Withrespectto the secondof the

conclusions formulatedby theTribunal, Cameroonhas not provided any evidence of any such

"significantacts". 142.In the respecthl submission of the Governmentof Nigeria the Court should regardthe

need for cautionas inevitablyenhancedin the case of an inhabitedtemtory with a longhistory of

administrative, economic,and social affiliations with Nigeria. In any case the attitude oftheo

Parties in the relevantperiodmilitatesagainstthe view that title was based upon the ebb and flow

of exploration permits. It may be recalledthat in theCor- Channelcase onthe meritsthe Court

took account of the 'attitude'of Albania in forming a view of the knowledge or otherwise ofthe

presence of mines on the part of Albania (I.C.J.Reports 1949,pp. 19-20). In the very different

circumstances of the present case, both parties displayed the same attitude in face of their

knowledge of oil activities.There was in fact a complementarityof attitude, amplyconfirmedin

the documentspresentedinthe Counter-Mernorial,to the effectthat oil explorationandthe issueof

titleto landtenitory werenot coincident.

The relianceofCameroonuponrnapevidenceinrelationtothe BakassiPeninsula

143. In the context of the Cameroon argument based upon acquiescence, considerable

reliance is placedupon rnapevidence. 1referto the Memorial,at pages 258 to 321. In this respect

the Cameroon Reply (p.313, para.5.239) relies upon the materialpresented in the Memorial. At

the outset, it is to be emphasized thatthe legal context is the Nigerian claimto title based upon

historical consolidation of title, eitherasautonomous basisof title, or as a confirmationof the

originaltitle tothe Bakassi Peninsula inheritedbyNigeria at the timeof independence.

144. Itmustfollowthatthe rnapevidenceprior to the independenceofNigeria in 1960 is not

of directrelevanceto thepositionintheperiod 1960 to 1995.

145. It must also follow that the rnap evidence can hardly be conclusive of the issue of

sovereigntyonthe basis of historical consolidationof title. In this particularlegal context,if there

is a difference between the rnap evidence and the administrative and social statusquo on the

ground, it wouldbe legally inappropriate,and incongruouson other grounds,to afford a decisive

role, or indeedanyrole, to thernapevidence.

146.Nigeria considersthat rnap evidencecannot overrulethe administrative statusquo on

the ground, and therefore many of the precedents concerning rnap evidence are simply notapplicableinthe circumstancesof this case. However,the following assessmentby the Chamberin

theFrontierDisputecaseis particularly apposite:

"Whether in fiontier delimitationsor in internationaltemtorial conflicts, maps
merely constitute information which varies in accuracy fiom case to case; of
themselves, and by virtue solely of their existence,they cannot constitute atemtorial

title, that is, a document endowedby internationallawwith intrinsiclegalforce forthe
purpose of establishingtemtorial rights. Of course,in some cases maps may acquire
such legal force, but where this is so the legal force does not arise solely fiom their
intrinsicmerits: itis because suchmaps fa11intothe categoryof physical expressions
of the will ofthe Stateor States concerned. Thisisthe case,for example,when maps
are annexed to an official text of which they form an integral part. Except in this
clearly defined case, maps are only extrinsic evidence of varying reliability or
unreliabilitywhichmaybe used, alongwith other evidenceofa circumstantialkind,to

establishor reconstitutethe real facts." (I.C.J.Reports1986,p. 582,para. 54.)

147.It wouldbe especially inappropriateto givepriority to the map evidence in the present

case. The map evidence,in sofar as itrelatesto Bakassi,is not basedupon direct knowledgeof the

situationon the ground. Themaps are al1compiledmaps,repeatingthe assumptionsof other map

makers. There cannotbe a focusupon thequestionof legal title to Bakassiin such circumstances.

And thisis particularlytrue when the Bakassiregion represents a veryminor feature on maps of

small scale.

148. Against this background the map evidence presentedby Cameroon can be analysed.

Nineteen maps appear to support the Cameroon position, and the list is in the transcript (Ml 1,

M91 and M92).

149.Al1of thesemapsare compiledfrom other sources. Nearlyal1are ofsmall scale. None

of these maps was prepared by experts concernedwith highly localized and specialized issues of

150. Of the maps reliedupon by Cameroon, two, Ml 1 and M80, are Cameroonianofficia1

mapsof late date, 1976and 1989,and arethereforeself-serving. Three of themaps reliedupon by

Cameroonare maps publishedat or soon afier the independence of Nigeria,M51,Ml 7, and M20;

in otherwords very earlyinthepost-independencephaseof historical consolidation.

151. Several of the maps relied upon by Cameroonemanate fiom the Federal Surveys of

Nigeria,namely, M17, 1963; M60, 1968; M20, 1960; and M21, 1972. These maps are of very

small scalewith the exceptionof the Calabarsheet,M17,publishedin 1963. It is importantfor theCourt to note that the general indication of the boundary status quo on these maps is firmly

contradictedby the Gazetteerpublishedby the Directorof FederalSurveys in 1965: 1referto the

AnnexNR 102 of the Rejoinder of Nigeria. SectionIV of VolumeII of the item concerned is

devoted to EasternNigeria. The Gazetteerlists three locationsin the Bakassi Peninsula: Abana,

Hanley Point and Sandy Point; and these appear at tab 26 and are presentlyon the screen. Each

locationis describedas a villageandthe CO-ordinatesaregiven.

152. It must be obvious that the Gazetteerreflects the political and social reality in the

Bakassi Peninsulafive years after independenceand notthe work of the compilers of small-scale

maps. None ofthe villages listed inthe Gazetteeras formingpartof EasternNigeriaaremarkedon

the maps relied upon by Cameroon. The Governrnentof Nigeria submits that the Gazetteer

providesthe expertevidenceinthis respectandnot themaps.

153. In any event there are three maps favourableto the position of Nigeria:Ml8(a), the

AdministrativeMap of Nigeria, 10thedition, of 1990,published by the Federal Survey (Lagos);

M90,publishedby Cross RiverStatein 1991; and M93(a),themapof Nigeria publishedin 1992.

154. Mr. President, 1have now completedmy consideration of various preliminary issues

andmustnow moveto the main Stream.

The bases ofNigeriantitletothe BakassiPeninsula

155.Atthis point it is necessaryto recalloncemore the three bases ofthe Nigerian claimto

title overthe BakassiPeninsula.

(i) Long occupation by Nigeria and by Nigerian nationals constituting an historical

consolidation of title and confirmingthe original title of the Kings and Chiefs of Old

Calabar,which title vestedinNigeriaat thetimeof Independencein 1960.

(ii) Effective administrationby Nigeria,actinas sovereign,and an absenceof proteston the

part of Cameroon.

(iii) Manifestationsof sovereigntybyNigeria togetherwiththe acquiescenceby Carneroonin

NigeriansovereigntyovertheBakassiPeninsula.

156. Thesethree basesofclaim applyboth individuallyandjointly. 157. Forthesakeof clarityit maybeemphasizedthatthe claimsof Nigeriadonot operateon

thepremisethat theBakassiPeninsula constitutesterra nullius,thatis to Say,temtory availablefor

occupation. The legalsituationappears to the respondent State to be in certain respectsimilarto

thatobtainingin theMinquiersandEcrehoscase.

158.The essenceof the matteris conveyedin thefollowingtwo passagesfiomthe Judgrnent

inthatcase:

"Both Parties contendthat theyhave respectivelyan ancientor originaltitle to
theEcrehosandthe Minquiers,andthattheir titlehasalways been maintainedandwas
neverlost. Thepresent casedoesnotthereforepresentthe characteristicsof a dispute
concerningthe acquisitionof sovereigntyover terra nullius." (IC.J.Reports 1953,
p. 53.)

And thenin a laterpassage: "Whatis of decisive importance,in the opinionoftheCourt,is ...the

evidencewhich relatesdirectly to the possessionof the Ecrehos andMinquiers groups." (Ibid.,

p. 57.)

159. The legal concept of historical consolidation oftitle is invoked by Nigeria as the

principalbasis of its claim to sovereigntyoverthe BakassiPeninsula. The principalelements of

the concept are adurnbratedby the editors of Oppenheim's International Law in the following

terms:

"Consolidation of historictitles. Yet continuousand peaceful display is a

complexnotionwhen appliedto the flexible andmany-sidedrelationshipof a stateto
itsterritory andin relationto otherStates. The manyand variedfactorswhichit may
comprise were felicitously subsumedby Charles De Visscherunder the convenient
mbricof 'consolidationbyhistoric titles';of whichhe says:

'Proven long use, which is its foundation, merely represents a
complexof interestsandrelationswhich in themselveshave the effectof
attaching a temtory or an expanseof sea to a givenState. It is these

interests and relations, varying from one case to another, and not the
passageof a fixed term,unknownin any eventto internationallaw,that
are taken into directaccountby the judge to decide in concret0 on the
existenceor non-existence of a consolidationbyhistorictitles.'

And Oppenheimcontinues:

"In an important examinationof the criteria applied by tribunals to resolve

territorial disputes,Munkman identified inter alia the following: recognition,
acquiescence and preclusion; possession and administration; affiliations of
inhabitants of disputed temtory; geographical considerations; economic
considerations; historical considerations. Of these several factors it has been said
that: 'Recognitionis the primary way in whichthe international communityhas sought to reconcile illegality or doubt with political reality and the need for
certainty."' (Footnotesomitted.)

160.CharlesDe Visscherfirst formulatedtheprincipleof historicalconsolidationin 1953,in

his work Théorieset Réalitésen Droit International Public (pp.244-245). The principle was

explainedby DeVisscher inhis monographLes Effectivitésdu DroitInternational Publicin 1967:

"L'arrêtde la Cour internationale de Justice en I'aflaire des Pêcheries
(Royaume-UniNorvège)a donnésapleine expression à la notiond'uneefectivitépar
consolidation de titres historiques. II a déclaréla méthode norvégiennede

délimitation des eaux territoriales 'consolidée par une pratique constanteet
suffisamment longue en face de laquelle l'attitude des gouvernements atteste que
ceux-ci ne l'ont pas considérée comme contraire au droit international'. Plus large
que la notion de laprescription acquisitive,fondéesur unefausse analogie avec le
droit privé,la consolidation embrasse à lafois le cas d'unepossession triomphant

d'unepossession adverseet celui d'unepossession s'appliquant à un territoire dont
l'appartenance antérieure à un autre Etat ne saurait êtreétablieavec certitude."
(Pp. 107-108.)

161. Two subsidiarybutsignificantpoints mustalsobe broughtinto account.

162. In the first place, treaty-based titles can be modified by means of historical

consolidation. A treaty-basedtitle has noparticularcachetas comparedwithothertitles.

163. Thus, in his general course at the Hague Academy in 1983, Michel Virally described

the legalpositionthus:

"d) La consolidationdestitres

Face aux prétentions contradictoires à la souverainetésur un territoire,
s'appuyantsur des titrestrèsdiversetparfois difficiles àdépartager,lajurisprudence
internationale,arbitraleetjudiciaire, a toujoursattachélaplus grande importance à
l'exercicepaisible et continu des compétencesétatiques,c'est-à-direà 1'efectivitéde
l'autoritéétatiques,emanifestantdansla durée. "

Andhe continues:

"L'exercice continu de l'autoritéétatique permet ainside consolider un titre
qui,à luiseul, n'auraitpas permis d'acquérirlasouveraineté territoriale (découverte,
contiguïté),oudepurger un titre deson vice initial (conquête)I.Ipeutprévaloirmême

sur un titre résultantd'un traitéou d'un autre acte juridique (affaire de I'lle de
Palmas,RSA, II,pp. 845ss.). " (Recueildes Cours,Vol. 183(1983-V), pp. 147-148.)

164. In an article published in 1957 Sir GeraldFitzmaurice observed that a revision of a

treatycouldresult from practiceor conduct: the British YearBook, 1957,atpage 225. "

165. In the second place, there is respectable authority for the view that evidence of

administrativepractice plays a significant role in situations in which title is uncertain. As the

Chamberobservedin the FrontierDisputecase: "Finally,there are caseswherethe legaltitleis not capableof showingexactly
the territorialpanse to whichit relates. The eflectivitéscan then play an essential
role in showing how the title is interpreted in practice."(I.C.J.Reports 1986,
pp.586-587,para.63.)

166. Similar views were expressedby the Charnberin the Land, Island and Maritime

FrontierDisputecase(I. C.J .eports1992,pp.408-409, para.80; p. 565,para. 345).

The elementsof historicalconsolidation

167.1havenowcompletedmyrehearsalof the legalconceptofhistoricalconsolidationand

it is timeto apply the concept to the case in hand. Theelementswhichconstitutethe processof

historical consolidationof title inrelationto theBakassi Peninsulaareas follows:

(i) The originaltitle of theCityStatesofOld Calabar.

(ii) The attitudeand ethnicaffiliationsofthepopulationof theBakassiPeninsula.

(iii) The EfikandEffiat toponymyof theBakassitoms andvillages.

(iv) The administrationof Bakassi as part of Nigeria in the period 1913to the date of

Independence.

(v) The exerciseof authorityoverthetoms andclansof Bakassiby traditionalRulerseither

based inCalabaror otherwise owingallegiancetoNigeria.

(vi) The exerciseofurisdictionby customarylawcourtsby virtueofNigerian legislation.

(vii)The long-establishedsettlementofnationalsofNigeriaintheregion; andlastly

(viii)Manifestationsof sovereigntybyNigeriaafterIndependencein 1960.

168.These elements are examinedin detail in theNigerian Rejoinder,at pages90 to 175,

andtheCourtis respectfullydirectedto thetextof theRejoinder.

169.For presentpurposes it is necessaryto focusupon those componentsin the processof

historical consolidationwhich speakwith particularclarityof the socialand political geographyof

the Bakassi Peninsulaand whichthusreflect its statusas a Nigerianhomeland. Accordingly,the

principleof selectionhas been theexistenceof apermanentand substantial populationofNigerians

in Bakassi, livingunder a Nigerian public order system, and with extensive affiliationswith

mainlandNigeria.

170. Asa firststep it is necessaryto examinethesystem oflocalgovernmentadministration

in South-EasternNigeriaafter independence.1refernowthegraphicswhich areundertab 27. 171. Prior to independencein 1960the Bakassi Peninsula wasunder the administration of

Akpabuyo Rural DistrictCouncil and Ibaka Rural District Council. These were both within the

Eastern Region. At independence,the northernhalf of Bakassi (including Archibong, Akwa and

IneAkpaIkang) wasadministeredby Akpabuyo LocalCouncil,withinthe CalabarDivision ofthe

Eastern Region of Nigeria. The southern part of Bakassi (includingAbana and East and West

Atabong)was administeredby IbakaLocalCouncilwithinthe EketDivisionofthe EasternRegion.

172. As the graphic shows, the division of the region reflected the affiliations of the

population,theCalabarDivisionrepresentingthe Efikgroupandthe Eket Division representingthe

Effiatgroup.

173. In 1967,the northem part of Bakassi was adrninisteredby AlcpabuyoCounty Council,

within Calabar Division of the newly-created South-EasternState. However the southern part of

Bakassiwas now being administeredby OronEast County Councilof Oron Division, alsowithin

South-EasternState.

174. In 1976,the then South-EasternState was renamed Cross River State. Cross River

State wasdividedintoLocal GovernrnentAreas. Thenorthem partof Bakassi was adrninisteredby

OdukpaniLocal GovemmentArea while the southernpart of Bakassi was administeredby Oron

LocalGovernmentArea.

175. In 1987,Akwa Ibom State was created and the Local Government Areas were again

reorganized. Thenorthem part of Bakassiwas nowadministeredby Akpabuyo LocalGovernment

Area within Cross River State. The southern part of Bakassi was administered by two Local

Govemment Areas within Akwa Ibom State: EffiatMbo Local Government Area and Okobo

Local Government Area. Effiat Mbo Local Govemment Area adrninistered,inter alia, Abana,

Onosi,Ine Akpak and Ine Odiong. OkoboLocal GovernmentArea administered,inter alia, East

and WestAtabong.

176.In 1996Bakassi LocalGovernrnent Area wascreated aspart of CrossRiver State.This

LocalGovernmentArea extendedto the wholeofthepeninsula, asituationwhichstill obtains.Thesystemof publicorder
177. This completesmy review of thelocal govemmentadministration,and within the

fi-ameworkof the conceptof historical consolidation, shall turn to the evidencerelating to the

system of public orderin Bakassi. In the first place the Govemmentof Cameroonis unable to

produceanyreliable evidenceconcemingtheadministrationofjustice in the Bakassiregion. This b

is clearfiom a perusalofthe Memorial,pages490 to 496andthe Reply,pages307to 312. In the

pleadings of Cameroonno fact is allegedand no document invoked toprove the existence of a

systemofcriminaljustice.

178.In contrat, there is reliableevidenceto showthat the Nigerian police based atIkang

police station were responsible forlaw and order in the Bakassi Peninsula over along period

(RejoinderofNigeria,pp. 123-128).

179.The pertinentevidence includesthe evidence of the exercise of jurisdiction by the

CustomaryLaw Courtsapplying Nigerianlegislation. Thedetails are set out in the Rejoinder,at

pages 113to 114.

180.The systemof public order based upon Nigerianinstitutionsincludesthe authority of

the TraditionalRulersoftheregion,baseduponthe systemofclansandthe institutionof allegiance

to the traditional leaders. The system of clans and Traditional Rulersforms an active and

significant feature of contemporary localsocial organization. Thus, the system of Traditional

Rulers is given repeatedrecognition andconfirmationin modem legislation.Tab 28 is relevantat

this point.

181.For exarnple,in 1978CrossRiverState promulgatedthe Traditional RulersLaw (Cross

River State Edict No. 14 of 1978)which includes Archibongwithin the Efik Clan of Calabar

Municipality. The EfikClanincludedthe followingninevillagesin Bakassi.

- IneNkanOkureNo.1

- IneNkanOkureNo.2

- IneUtan

- IneUtan Asuquo

- Ine Ikang

- IneAkpaIkang- IneEfiom

- IneUkpono,and

- IneEkoi.

182.In 1990, AkwaIbomStateadoptedthe TraditionalRulersEdict whichmade provision

for the establishmentof a traditional councilin each localgovernmentarea withinthe State. The

scheduleto this edictlists thefollowingvillagesaswithinthe areaofMboLocalGovernment:

- AbanaNtuen

- Onosi

- AkpaNkanya

- IneOdiong

andthefollowingvillageswithinthe authorityof OkoboLocal GovermnentArea:

- IneItung

- AquaIne Itung

- IbiongUtanItung

- AquaIne Ibekwe

- UfotIne Itung

- Ishie.

183.The appointmentand officialrecognitioninlegislationofVillageHeads within theEfik

Clans confirmsthe existenceof the authorityof the TraditionalRulersin Bakassi. The pertinent

officia1lists such as the Traditional Rulers Register(OdukpaniLocalGovernment)and the listof

recognized Namesof Clans,Villages and VillageHeadscontain an impressive nurnber of Bakassi

villages; 1refertoAnnexNR 16ofthe RejoinderofNigeria.

184.The CameroonReplyfails to provide any contradiction ofthe evidenceproduced by

Nigeriain the Counter-Memorial on the role of the TraditionalRulersin the administration ofthe

Bakassiregion. In this contextit is to be emphasizedthat at no stagehave the TraditionalRulers

recognizedany claimsto sovereigntymadeonbehalfofCameroon.Theaffiliationsof thepopulation of Bakassi

185.1shall tum next to the affiliationsof the population. The ninth editionof Oppenheim

refers to the relevance of the "affiliations of inhabitantsof disputeditory" (Oppenheim,Vol.1,

pp. 709-710,para. 272.) Onthe operationofthisfactor Munkmanobserves:

"Wherethe territory is inhabited,the afiliations of the inhabitantswill be of
great-but, probably, becauseof theconsiderationsmilitatinginfavour ofthe State
in actual possession, secondary - importance. Were the administration isitself
disputed anddoubtful,theaflliations oftheinhabitantswillprobably bedecisive. In
inhabited areas considerations of geography, strategy, etc. will usually be a very
secondary consideration. Economic, historical, culturaland social factors, and

considerations of convenience will usually correspond to the affiliations of the
inhabitants. Butthese considerations,evenif they donot al1weighon the same side,
willprobably onlycal1for some adjustmentof a boundary delimitedprimarily on the
basis of the affiliations of theinhabitants." (Munkman, British Year Book,Vol. 46
(1972-1973),p. 100; emphasisadded.)

186. As the Attorney-General of Cross River State has explained, the majority of the

fishermenand farmersliving in theBakassi Peninsulahave for centuries belongedto the Efik and

Effiat ethnic groups, which have always had strong links with the City States of Calabar. The

principal mainland towns of the Efik which are located on the graphic are as follows; this is at

tab 29, andis now onthe screen:

- Calabar

- Ikang

- Itu, and

- IkotNakanda

187.The principaltoms ofthe Effiat,whichare alsolocated onthegraphic,areas follows:

- uyo

- Eket

- Oronand

- Ikot-Ekpene

188.A particularlystrikingfeature is the relation between Effiat villages in the Mbo Local

Govement Area of AkwaIbom State and their affiliated villages in, what is now, the Bakassi

Local Governrnent Area. A table of such villagesand their affiliates in Bakassi is set forth in the

Rejoinder, at paragraph3.76. 189.A furthersignificantelementin thepattern of associationconsistsin theindigenousand

ancient society known as Ekpe. This is described, from the outside as it were, in the section

entitled "Societies"@aras.48 et seq.) inthe report by Mr. Anderson,Assistant DistrictOfficer,in

AnnexNR 13 (Rejoinder of Nigeria). The Ekpe Society represents the strongest traditional

organization. Each mainvillagehasitsown Ekpehouse and theEkpe Societyhas stronglinkswith

Calabar. Adherence to this Societyis compatible with the practice of Christianity andCO-exists

with churchmembership. The Effiat ethnic group also use the Ekpe Society as a form of social

administration.

190. It is very significant that Cameroon has not been able to produce any evidence of

affiliations of the communities on Bakassi with Cameroon. Cameroonhas not alleged that any

Camerooniannationals have been displacedas a consequence of Nigerian actions. Noclaimhas

been presentedon behalfof Camerooniannationals residentinthe Bakassiregion; 1refer againto

the Conclusionsof the Republic of Cameroon inthe Memorialand again in the Reply. Indeed,

Cameroonhasnot produced any evidenceofanyCamerooniansliving onBakassi at anytime.

Public education

191.Continuingmy review of the various elements of historical consolidation,1would like

to refer to fourtypes of eflectivités.My first subject is publiceducation. The provisionof public

educationis clearlyan exerciseof State functionsconstitutingevidenceof title. In theLand, Island

and MaritimeFrontier Dispute, the Charnberof the Court recognizedthat the provisionof public

education countedas an eflectivité.(I.C.J.Reports 1992, pp.397-399, paras.60-62; pp.542-543,

para. 304). In the Report of the Court of Arbitration in the Beagle Channel case,the Tribunal

refers to the provision of public education as a State activity "customarily associatedwith the

existenceof sovereignty"(ILR,Vol.52, p. 222). It shouldbe added thatthe provisionof education

also reflectsthe cultural characteristicsof the permanent populationwhich a systemof education

serves.

192.There is a substantialquantity of evidence of the Nigerian provenanceof educationin

Bakassi. Therelevant tab is tab 30. 193.From as early as 1893,there was a MethodistChurch School in Archibong, but in the

period prior to the 1960s,the people of Bakassi,if they were able to affordthe cost of transport,

tended to send their children toDukeTown Primary School in Calabar, which had first been

establishedin 1846.
T
194. In the post-independence period pupils fromthe Bakassi toms and villages attended

the Methodist Primary School atIkang. Class attendanceregisters for the years 1961to 1962,

1963, 1965 and 1967, include pupils from Archibong Town (Rejoinder of Nigeria,

Anns. NR 72-75).

195.A Methodist School was establishedin 1968 at Atabong,and this was still functioning

underthe authorityof the Nigerian Educationand ExaminationBoard in 1975(Counter-Memorial

ofNigeria,Ann.NC-M 183).

196. In a Note dated 15September1969, Cameroonprotested when a primary school was

established at Abana by the Catholic Mission based at Uyo (Counter-Memorial of Nigeria,

Ann.NC-M 148). Whilst the school was not supported by public funds, the Govemment of

Cameroonclearly regardedthis development asevidence of aform of NigerianStateactivity.

197. Nine schoolsintotal were establishedonBakassiprior to 1994. These were located in

the following seven locations(see Counter-Mernorialof Nigeria,Ann.NC-M 184).

- Archibong Town;

- N'an Okure;

- Atabong West;

- AtabongEast;

- Mbenmong;

- Nwanyo; and

- AbanaTown.

198. In Annexes MC 317 and MC322 of the Memoriaiof Carneroonthere are two intemal

notes,which appear to be exactly the samebut whichare given two different dates on their cover

sheet, 18Febmary 1992 and 18December1992 respectively. These show that even Cameroon

recognizesthe factthattheseschoolsareNigerian. Andthenotes state: "the Community School, opened and directed by the Local Community of JABANA
(Cameroun) [calledAbana by the Efiks], receives subventions from AKPABUYO
LOCAL GOVERNMENT,the State Communeof AKWA-BOM [sic] INNIGERIA.
Initially it was built of temporary materials and then in the process of being
refurbished in permanent materials. The Teachers are al1 natives of NIGERIA."
(Counter-Memorialof Nigeria, Ann.NC-M 186.)

199.In September1992constructionof a new primaryschool hadbegun at Abanaunderthe

auspicesof AkpabuyoLocal Govemment(RejoinderofNigeria, Ann.NR 76) andat AtabongWest

in September1994 (Ann.NR 77).

200. The particularly impressiveaspect of the educational picture is the fact that many

individualsprovide testimonythat they receivedtheir educationin Nigerian-createdschools either

in Bakassior in Calabar. The BakassiChiefsstate thatprimary education schoolshave existedon

Bakassi for a long time. Etinyin Etim Okon Edet, the Clan Head of Abana, attests that he had

attended the Abana Catholic Mission School fi-om 1969. He submitted his report card for

Elementary 1(Ann.NR 78). Hesaidhis schoolonly hadgrades Elementary 1,2 and3, afterwhich

he andotherswere sentto the mainlandto continue theirprimary schooleducation.

201. He remembers that his headmaster was called Mr.Friday Ebukanson. He also

remembers his class teacher, ChiefNyong Etim Inyang. The Chief is still alive and is now the

village head of Adak Uko on the Nigerian mainland. The Clan Head of Abana, His Royal

Highness Etinyin EtimOkon Edet,was the ChairmanofAkpabuyoLocalGovernent underwhich

the northernpart of Bakassi was administeredbefore it was made a separate local govemment in

1996. He constructeda primary school atAbanain 1992and as Chairmanof thelocalgovemment

he postedteacherstothe school, andto otherschools(RejoinderofNigeria,App., pp.144-145).

202. His Royal Highness Ededem Archibong, the head of Archibong clan, stated that a

primary school existed in Archibong Townfor many years. A teacher named SamuelUdo still

resides inArchibongTown. He statedthat hecame to thetown in 1977,and, discoveringthatthere

was no functioningschool, createdonehimself. It wasrunby the localcommunityandreceivedno

fimdingor resourcesfiom eitherNigeriaor Cameroon. Heran this primary schoolfiom 1978until

1994, when the Nigerian local govemmentbecame involved in the administration. The primary

school has about 500pupils at present. A secondaryschoolwas alsobuilt in Archibongin 1993,

and this has about 200pupils. The Clan Head himself attended school in Calabar (Rejoinder of

Nigeria, App.,p. 145). 203. The Clan Head of Akwaaffirmed thatthere is a community primary schoolin Nkan

Okure which is run by the local people. This was reopenedduring the 1970s and has been

approvedby AlcpabuyoLGA. Therearecurrentlyfour teachersand 150pupilsthere (ibid.).

204. A secondaryschool wasset up in WestAtabongin 1995. It was hded by the local
*
govemrnent. A primaryschool wasalso establishedby theLGA in 1994. The teachers ofboth

schools are paid by Nigeria. Beforehen, therewere communityschools which were run by the

churches. IsaacBoroalsostartedaschoolin WestAtabongin 1968duringthe civil war. This was

runby AmeraAndemEma, who isstillalivetoday. He statedthat he was neverpaid as a teacher,

and that whenIsaac Boro left, the cornmunitytook over therunningof the school. Eventually it

wasabandoned. The children thenusedto goto hg or to Calabarfor their education. TheClan

Head attendedschoolin Calabar,wherehe stayedduringtermtime andreturnedto West Atabong

forthe vacation(Rejoinderof Nigeria, App.,pp. 145-146).

205. In relation to East Atabongthe ClanHead reportsthat a primary schoolwas setup

in 1999. Prior to that there was a comrnunityschool run by the local people. However, some

attendedthe Isaac Boro school in West Atabongor the schoolsin Calabar or Ikang. The Chief

himselfattendedschoolin Calabar.

206.Insharpcontrast,in thetworoundsofwrittenpleadingsCameroonhasfailedtoprovide

evidenceofa single schoolrun bytheCameroonian authoritiesinthe Bakassiregion,with thesole

exception of the reference in AnnexRC 180to the Reply of Cameroon, in a documentdated

15October1988, onlyfiveyearspriorto theApplicationinthiscase.

Taxation

207.1 have alreadyexaminedthe evidencerelatingto thecollection oftax fiom residentsof

the BakassiPeninsulaby Cross RiverState andAkwa IbomState. The Nigerian authoritieshave

collectedtaxaspartof aconsistentpattern of activity.Themeagreand unreliableevidence offered

by Camerooncontrastswiththe evidenceof taxcollectionbyNigeriasincethe 1960s.Publichealth
208.1 shall movenextto the topicof publichealth. As in thecaseof educationandtaxation,

the provisionfor publichealth is indicativeof a permanent population enjoyithe benefitsof a

mature systemof administration.Therelevanttabis3 1.

209. Since 1959,the Nigerian authoritiesin Bakassihave established HealthCentresforthe

benefit ofthe communitieson Bakassi,and,indeed,thesehave oftenbeenbuilt withthe assistance

ofthe localcommunities.ThesehealthcentresaresuppliedwithNigerianfunding,andtheresident

public healthworkersaretrained inNigeria. Therearecurrentlyten suchhealthcentresacross the

BakassiPeninsula providinga widerange of health careand programmes (Counter-Memoriao lf

Nigeria,Ann. NC-M 188). The followingis a listof the foundationdatesof someHealth Centres

(Ann.NC-M 184):

- Archibongwas establishedin 1959;

- Mbenmongin 1960;

- AtabongWest in 1968;

- Abanain 1991 ;and

- AtabongEast in 1992.

210. Apart fiom health centreswithin theBakassiregion,the health centreat Ikang,on the

Nigerian mainland, treats patients fiom Bakassi. Immunization records are available for the

years 1986 to 1990 (Rejoinder of Nigeria, Ann. NR 82). Patients resident in Archibong and

Atabong arelisted in the attendancerecords. The antenatalclinic at the Ikang Health Centreis

attendedby women fiomBakassi. Theserecords datingfiom the period 1985to 1999includethe

following towns and villageson Bakassi: ArchibongTown,Ine Ikan,Ine Ekpo,Ine Akpa Ikang,

andIneUtan(Ann.NR83).

211.In the courseof 1994,Cross River Statemade provision for the equipping of health

centres in Archibong Town, Atabong West and Abana (Counter-Memorial of Nigeria,

Ann. NC-M 189).

212. At no stage have the Carneroonauthoritiesmade provision for health care in the

Bakassi region. In contrast,the provisionof healthcare is part of a consistentpattern ofNigerian

sovereignty,and, as the Court stated intheBeagle Channelarbitration,"the provision of publicmedicalservices"as a Stateactivityis "customarilyassociatedwith the existenceof sovereignty"

(ILR,52,p. 222).

213. AnotherStateactivity which markstheexistence ofa permanent populationin which a P

State has a persistent interest is census taking. The taking of a census is a classic form of

exercising sovereigntyin respect ofterritory. In itsmentin the MinquiersandEcrehoscase

this Court tookaccountof the visit ofan officia1censusenurneratorto the two groupsof islets as

"evidenceoftheexerciseofordinary local administration(IC.J Reports1953,pp. 66,69).

214. Therewas a populationcensusofNigeria in 1953d, uringtheperiodof theTrusteeship.

This included as part of AkpabuyoRural District Council,as the area was then known, within

CalabarProvince,the followingfivevillageslocatedon theBakassi Peninsula,as ontab32.

- IneAkpaIkang

- IneEkoi

- IneNkanOkure

- IneUtanand

- IneUtanAsukquo(Counter-MemorialofNigeria,Ann.NC-M142).

215. Therewas also a populationcensusin Nigeria in 1963, in whichthe EasternRegion

phase includeda return from AbanaNtuen withinIbaka Council (Counter-Memorialof Nigeria,

Ann.NC-M 175).In 1991theNational Population Commission visited Abanaand madea report,

dated 14Novernber1991, to the control centre, Mbo Local Govemment Area, in which they

countedthe numberof buildingsinthetown anddrewa sketch-map(Counter-Memoriao lfNigeria,

Ann.NC-M 176). They also sketchedand delimited anumber of Nigerian villageson Bakassi

(Ann.NC-M 177). Populationstatisticsavailablefiom the National Population Commission are

based upon the 1991Census (Rejoinderof Nigeria, Ann. NR 64). The most recent population

figureforthe Bakassiis 156,000.
*
216. Evidence providedby the Clan Heads exercisingauthority over the villages of the

Bakassiestablishesthat thepeople took partinthecensusof 1953andmorerecentcensuses. 217. The pleadings of the Governrnent of Cameroon contain a reference to a census

conducted in the region by the Cameroon authorities,but no evidence is supplied (Memorial,

p. 493, para.4.443). TheCarneroonReply providesno informationonthe subject.

Other State activities

218. Mr. President, there areother State activities which are population-related andwhich

arethe subjectof evidencepresentedin theNigerianRejoinder. Theseare as follows:

First: the use of Nigenan currency for both public and commercial purposes (Rejoinder,

p. 102).

Second the useof NigerianpassportsbyresidentsofBakassi(Rejoinder,p. 158).

Third the existenceof apostaladministration(Rejoinder,p. 159).

Fourth: participationinparliamentaryelections (Rejoinder,pp. 140-141); and

Fifth: canoe licensing(Rejoinder,p. 160).

219.In contrast,there is noevidencethatCamerooniancurrencyis in use, noevidenceofthe

use of Cameroonianpassports,no evidence of the existence at anytime of a Cameroonianpostal

service, and no evidence that residents of Bakassi have taken part in parliamentary elections

relatingto Cameroon.

220. The provision of a postal administration is particularly redolent of sovereignty.

Internationaltribunalsrecognizethat the existenceof apostaladministrationconstitutessignificant

evidence of title to temtory (see the Report of the Court of Arbitration, Beagle Channel case

(Argentina v. Chile),ILR, Vol. 52,p. 93). Inthis case the Court gaveweight to the establishment

of a postalserviceon Picton Island byChilein 1905(ibid.,p. 221,para. 166 (3)).

Economic linkswith the mainland

221. As the distinguished editors of Oppenheim'sInternational Law observe: "In an

important examinationof the criteriaappliedby tribunals to resolvetemtorial disputes,Munkman

identifiedinteralia the following... economicconsiderations." (9thed.,Vol. 1,p. 710,para. 272.)

222.The editors,Sir RobertJenningsandSir ArthurWatts,weredescribingthe practical and

evidentialcontent of the concept of the consolidation ofhistorictitles. Inthis comection it is notunusualfor the Court, andother tribunals, totake the economic usageof the local inhabitantsinto

account.

223.Inthe Judgmentin the Anglo-NorwegianFisheriescase the Courtstatedthe following:

"Finally, there is one consideration notto be overlooked, the scope of which
extends beyond purely geographical factors: that of certain economic interests
peculiar to a region,the reality and importanceof which are clearly evidenced by a

longusage." (1C.J.Reports1951,p. 133.)

224. In the Rannof Kutch arbitration, the President of the Tribunal gave particular legal

significanceto the useofgrazing groundsbythe inhabitantsof Sind:

"With referenceto Dhara Banni and ChhadBet, 1deern it establishedthat, for
wellover one hundredyears, thesolebenefls whichcouldbe derivedfiomtheseareas
wereenjoyedby inhabitantsof Sind. It is not suggestedthat the grazingas such was
subject to British taxation. Such limited evidence as there is on record seems,

however, to justi@ the assumption that the task of maintaining law and order was
discharged by the Sind authorities, it is not even suggested that the authorities of
Kutchat any timeviewedsucha task asformingpartoftheir duties.

Whatever other Government functions were required with respect to these
outlyinggrazinggrounds,onwhich herds ofcattlefiomtime to timeshepherded,were

apparentlyundertaken bySind." (ILR,Vol. 50,p. 510; emphasisadded.)

"At no time were these tax levies effective, as is evidenced by the small
amounts recovered,which fell far short of the expenditureincurredin the collection.
More significantly,the imposition of the levy was opposed, not only by the local
villagers,but bythe British Governrnentauthoritiesconcerned ... Taken in all, these
activities by Kutch cannot be deemed to have constituted continuous and effective

exercise ofjurisdiction. By contrast, thepresence of Sind in DharaBani and Chhad
Bet cornes as closeto effectivepeaceful possession and display of Sind authority as
may be expected in the circumstances. Both the inhabitantsof Sind who used the
grazinggrounds,and the Sind authorities,musthave acted on the assumption that
DharaBanniandChhadBet were Britishterritory." (Ibid., pp. 510-511; emphasis
added.)

225.The fishing cornrnunitieslong establishedon Bakassi have strongeconomic links with

the mainland of Nigeria. Their building materialscome fiom the mainland. They use Nigerian

currency and sel1their products in Nigerian markets. Thetowns and villages on Bakassi have

nameswhichare derivedfiom townsand villageson theNigerianmainland.

Conclusion

226.This concludesmy survey of those elements in the process of historical consolidation

which speakwith particular clarity of the social and political geography ofthe Bakassi Peninsula.These elements provide strong evidence of the existence of a permanent population of

156,000Nigerians in Bakassi, livingunder a Nigerian public order system, and having extensive

affiliationswithainlandNigeria.

227. A subsidiary aspect of the picture consists of the attemptsby Cameroon, particularly

from 1973onward, to usurp the pre-existingpeaceful possession of Nigeria. In this contextthe

attempts by Cameroonin the period 1973 to 1975 to changethe long-establishedplace-namesof

Bakassi townshave a special resonance. Such attempts were unsuccessful, and thus in 1986we

find an officia1 Cameroonian report complaining that the new narnes were not in use

(Counter-Memorialof Nigeria, Ann.NC-M224).

228. Other Cameroonian documentsmake rueful cornmentsconcerning the indifferenceof

the populationto Cameroonian effortsto intrudeupon theNigerian statusquo.

Theacquiescenceof Camerooninfaceof thepeaceful exerciseofsovereigntybyNigeria

229. It is now necessary to refer to the acquiescenceof Cameroon in face of the peaceful

exercise of sovereigntyby Nigeria. As Nigeria indicatedin the Counter-Memorial, acquiescence

has three distinct roles. In the first place, acquiescence forms averyignificant element in the

process of historical consolidation oftitle itself. its first (but by no means exclusive)role is

played alongsidethe elements of historical consolidationreviewedbove.

230.Thesecondrole of acquiescenceis that of confirminga titleon the basisofthe peaceful

possession of the temtory concerned, that is to Say,the effective administration of the Bakassi

PeninsulabyNigeria, actingas sovereign,andan absenceof protest onthe part of Cameroon.

23 1.Inthe third place, acquiescencemaybe characterizedas themain componentoftitle.

232. The relevant jurisprudence of the Court is set forth in the Counter-Memonal, at

pages 260to261 (paras. 10.124-10.127).

Theevidenceof acquiescencebyCamerooninfaceoftheexerciseofsovereigntybyNigeria
233.Theevidenceof acquiescenceby Cameroonis setforth inNigeria's Counter-Mernorial,

at pages 267 to 280. This examination of theevidence in a temporal sequence resulted in three

conclusions,whichwereas follows. 234. First,until 1972 the Government of Cameroon acquiesced in the long-established

Nigerian administration ofthe Bakassiregion. From 1972onwards,there were variousCameroon

initiatives,and,in particular,the projectfor the renaming of villages,whichlearly demonstratethe a

previous absence of a Cameroonian administration. On the ground there were sporadic
*
Cameroonian activities which did not result in the establishment of effective or exclusive

Camerooncontrolin the region.

235. Secondly,at no stage did Cameroon exercise peaceful possession. From the time of

independencein 1960 until 1972 the Governmentof Cameroon failed to challenge the legitimate

Nigerian presencein the region. In the years after 1972,in spite of a growing intrusivenesson the

partof Cameroon,this latedevelopmentof an expansionist policycouldnot erase the effects of the

earlierattitudeof acquiescence.

236. As 1have already pointed out, acharacteristicof the CameroonReply is that it avoids

making any detailed comment upon the evidence of Cameroonian acquiescence set forth in the

Counter-Memorial at pages267 to 280. In another section of the Reply, at pages92 to 94,

Cameroon purports to examine the acts of acquiescence "alleged by Nigeria". In this section

Cameroonavoidsdealingwith specificissuesof factand law.

Conclusions

237. In conclusion it is appropriate to focus upon certain significant points by way of

emphasis.

238. In the first place 1 must recall the point 1 made earlier, when 1 emphasized that the

claimsof Nigeria do not operate onthe basis that the Bakassi Peninsula constituteda terra nuIlius

at any stage. 1then drew an analogywith the Minquiers and Ecrehos case, which, 1stated, was

similarin certain respects.

239. At this stage,this analogy calls for a substantial qualificationbased upon a particular

premise. The premise is as follows: suppose that, irrespective of the legal position prior to
*
independence, Nigeriantitle were basedupon a process of historicalconsolidationwhichbegan at

thetime of independence; the analogy then with theMinquiersand Ecrehos case wouldbe in some

importantrespectsinappropriate. 240. In the Minquiersand Ecrehos case, the Court treated the two claimants as equal

competitorsin relationto proving title, andas equalcompetitorswithin the same time frame. Inthe

present case,the legal frameworkis very different.

241. Nigeria hadundisputedandpeacefulpossession ofBakassi for atleast eightyears after

independence. In this situationCameroonwas a usurper Stateand not a peaceful competitor,like

the United Kingdom and France in the circurnstances of the Minquiers and Ecrehos case.

Moreover, the Minquiers and Ecrehos groups didnot have a permanent population,in contrastto

the situationinBakassi.

242. Asthe documents show,Cameroonwas well awareof the Nigerianpresence,and ofthe

Nigerian response by way of protest, in face of Cameroonian initiatives involving the use of

securityforces.

243. In the light of these considerations,itmust followthat Cameroonianactivitiesintended

to usurp thepre-existing Nigerian titlewere notactivities exercisedin good faith.

244. The status quo after the independenceof Nigeria in 1960 involvedNigerian possession

of Bakassi, and the presence of apermanentpopulation with significantaffiliations of a Nigerian

character.

245. Moreover,Nigeria had the benefitof a clear priorityof settlement, a factorgiven weight

by the Tribunal in the HondurasBorders case, between Guatemala and Honduras (RIAA,II,

p. 1307 at p. 1359). As 1 have pointed out already the significance of the affiliations of the

inhabitants of disputedtemtory is recognizedby the distinguishededitors of Oppenheim(9thed.,

Vol. 1,pp. 709-710,para. 272).

246. And, in this context, a factorwhich should not be neglected is that a determination

which reflectsthe affiliationsof the inhabitantsandthe patternof settlementin good faith is also a

determinationwhich militatesin favourof stability.

247. Before concluding,Mr.President, 1shall offer a briefreconnaissanceof the first-round

speechby my friend, Maurice .Mendelson,withparticular referenceto the bases of Nigeria'sclaim

and the role of eflectivités.ProfessorMendelson'sspeech wasthat of a lawyer who is in a huny

and had not enough time to examine the evidence. That difficulty, of course, cannot be laidat

Nigeria's door. Worse,counselfor CamerooncomplainedthatNigeria hadmade "a point of pilingup evidence" of effectivités(CR 200214,p. 45, para.23) and of "amassing one example after

another". One can onlyoffer sympathyto an advocatewho has such ruthlessopponents. In any

event,1ask the Court to notethat counselfor Cameroonthroughout his speech clearly accepttshat C i
lc
Nigeriahas producedmoreevidenceofeffectivités thanCameroon.
'.
248. ProfessorMendelson invokesthe FrontierDispute case as the basis for the argument

that,in relationto a rightderivedfioma legal title,suchas atreaty, anyevidence ofefectivitéscan

only be confirmatory (CR200214, p. 35, para.1). But this argument rests upon the two

assurnptionsthat there is a treaty-basedtitl- that is a Cameroonian assurnption - and that it

cannotbe changedevenby lawful means. Nigeria's claimis based upon historicalconsolidation

and evidence of effectivitésis perfectly compatible withthis basis of title. And, in any event,

Mr.President,a treaty-basedtitlecanbechangedbylawfülmeans.

249. ProfessorMendelson Statesthat Nigeria makes use of historical consolidation"sotto

voce"but this is not true. Both in the Counter-Memorialand inthe RejoinderNigeriaspells out

thebasisof her claimveryclearly. Moreover, inherCounter-MemorialNigeria,in anotherepisode

of nithlessness,piles upreferencesto 11authorities(Counter-Memorial,pp. 221-223).

250. ProfessorMendelsonpayslittleor no attentionto historical consolidationoftitle,which

is thebasis ofNigeria's claimbut refersinsteadtothe conceptof prescription, whichisgenerically

distinctand has notbeeninvokedbyNigeria. In his opinion,if Nigeriahad invoked prescription,

this wouldhave eliminatedmany of Nigeria'seffectivités (CR 200214, p.39, para. 10; pp.51-52,

para.37). Butthisassertionis unfoundedand inanyevent Nigeriahasnotrelieduponprescription.

Counselfor Camerooncannotexpectto reinventNigeria's casein orderto attackit.

In concluding,1wish to thankthose who haveassistedme in preparingthis speechand, in

particular,ChristopherHackfordandDavid LererofD. J.Freeman.

This concludes my presentation this moming and 1 would thankthe Court both for its

courtesyand itspatience.

The PRESIDENT:Thankyouverymuch,Professor Brownlie.Cecimet un term à la séance

de cematin. Laprochaineséanceauralieulundi à 10heures. La séance esltevée.

L'audienceest levéeà 13h 05.