Solicitors
dj freeman"
43 Fetter Lane
London
ECXA1JU
Tel020 75834055
Fax02073537377
DX 103 London
www.djfreeman.com
PhilippeCouvreur Direct line02075564437
Registrar Directfax0207713657
InternationalCourtof Justice ChrisHackfoddjfreeman.com
PeacePalace -
2517 KJ 4 April 2002
The Hague
Netherlands
By hand
Our ref CPH/CG4/01109708
DearSir
Caseconcerning the land and maritime boundarybetweenCameroon and Nigeria
(Cameroon v Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening)
I acknowledgewiththanks receipt of the copy of your letter of 26 March 2002 to the distinguished
Agentof the FederalRepublicof Nigeria.
On the Agent's behalf I now have the honourto enclosesix copiesof Nigeria'swritten responsesto
thethree Judges'Questionsraised inthe course ofthe oral phase.
I also enclose on the Agent'sbehalf, as a secondand separateitem, six copies of Nigeria's written
observations on Cameroon's oral response to the question of Judge Fleischhauer, and on
,b. Cameroon's "Complement a la reponseorale a la question dujuge Fleischhauef. I presume it
,I goes without sayingthat although under the RulesCameroonis entitled to make observationson
Mggria's writtenresponsesitis not entitledto makeobservationson this secondand separateitem.
Pleas?accept Sir,the assurancesof myhighestconsideration.
.
AlanPerry P
DJ Freeman
4-f:u,;a
Encs
ThPannershISregulatedin theconductof itsinvestmentbusinessbythe LawSociety
Alistof panners isavailablefothaboveaddress INTERNATIONALCOURT OF JUSTICE
CASECONCERNING
THE LANDAND MARITIMEBOUNDARY
BETWEENCAMEROONANDNIGERIA
(Cameroon. Nigeria:EquatorialGuineaintervening)
Commentsof the Federal Republicof Nigeria
onthe answersto the Judges' Questions
submitted by Cameroonon 10 March2002
4 Apri2002Comments on the answers to the Judges' Questions submitted by Cameroon on
10 March 2002
Cameroon filed its responseto the questionsraised by Judge Fleischhaueron 10 March
2002, and these were sent to the Agent forNigeria by the Registry on 11 March 2002.
Cameroon nowherestates whether these were its final answers or whether it intended to
providefuller andmore detailedanswersby4 April 2002.
Thus Nigeria'scommentscontained hereare a response to those answers submittedto the
Court on 10 March2002, and receivedby Nigeria on 11March 2002. Nigeria reservesthe
right to make further comments on anyadditional answerthat Cameroon mayfile with the
Court by 4April2002.
Nigeria does notintend hereto referin detail to its own arguments,which are set out in full
in its pleadings.and-.--its-auswe-to.Judge.Fleischhauer's.question, which it filed at the
Court on 4 April 2002. In this present document, Nigeria will confine itself simply to
commenting onpoints raisedby Camerooninthe written responsesfiled at the Courton 10
March2002.
1.1 Lake Chad
This is not one of the areas identified by Nigeria as having problems of defective
delimitation. Nigeria's arguments in respectof Lake Chad are set out in the Rejoinderat
Chapters 4 and5, pages217-277.
1.2 The mouth of the Ebeji
Cameroon statesthat from Point V, the boundary as describedin the Thomson Marchand
Declarationfollowsthe courseof the ElBeid(Ebeji) River.This is an impossibility.Point V is 2
notthe mouth of the Ebeji, nor does it lie on that river, or any other river. Nigeria hasgiven
detailsabout thisin its Rejoindeat paragraphs7.16-7.25.
1.3 Narki
Nigeriarespectfullydrawsthe attentionof the Courtto the point madeby Nigeria's Counselin
the secondroundof the oral proceedings' thatthe River Ngassaouaflows theAgzabame
marsh,and notoutof it, asCameroonclaims.
Nigerianotes that Cameroon does notmake any substantivecomment on the May 1921
sketch map signed by British and French officials, referredto in paragraph 7.28 of the
Rejoinder and atAnnex NR151.
Nigeriadenies that the Lamido of Limani governs the inhabitantsof Narki, and notes that
Cameroonhasproducednoevidenceof this activity.
Nigeriahas produced,in its Rejoinderand in the oral proceedings(Tab 14 of the Judges'
Folderfor the SecondRound),aerial photographywhich showsthat there is a watercoursein
the locationclaimedby Nigeria.Its alignmentagreeswith that shownin the May 1921sketch
mapat Annex NR 151. Thisclearly refutesCameroon'sclaimthat this water coursedoes not
exist.
1.4 KirawaRiver
Nigeriadenies that it has dug an artificial channel in the vicinity of the village of Gange.
Cameroonhas producedno evidence atall of such a constructionby Nigeria. In any event,
examination of Figure 7.5 in Nigeria's Rejoindershows that Gange is downstream of the
disputedsection,and so any such constructionin this area would haveno effectonthe rier
coursein the disputedsection.
1
CR 2002119p.22, para.16 (Macdonald).Nigeria regardsthe normalcourseof the KirawaRiveras followingthe mainchannel,whichis
indisputablythe eastern channel,as Nigeriahas shownin paragraphs7.33and 7.34 of its
Rejoinder.
1.5 KohomRiver
A phrase suchas "Mount Ngossin can only beappliedto a singlepeak. Ifthedraftsmenof the
ThomsonMarchandDeclarationhadwishedto use a mountainrange,as Cameroonsuggests,
they would haveusedthe phrase"Ngossi MountainsnT . he summitto whichCameroonseeks
to attachthename MountNgossiis calledMatakamand,as a triangulationpoint,is so named
inthe recordsof the FederalSurveysDepartmentof Nigeria.
1.6 Turu
Nigeria hasshown in its pleadings2that Turu has expandedacross the watershedand into
territory,which,underthe termsof the Thornson-MarchandDeclaration,belongsto Nigeria.It
does not,therefore,remainentirelywithinCameroonianterritoryasCameroonasserts.
Although Nigeriadoes acknowledgethat thevillage of Turu as it existed in 1929 was left to
France, ithasnot acquiescedanddoes notacquiesceinits expansionintoNigerianterritory.
1.7 From the mountain range of Ngosito Rumsiki
Nigeria respectfullydraws the Court's attentionto thefact that boundarydoesnot followthe
watershedallthe way from Mabasto Rumsiki.There aretwo sections,inthevicinlty of Wula
Hanko andof Rumsiki, wherethe Thomson-Marchand Declaration requiretshe boundaryto
leave the watershedand follow cultivated land instead.Nigeriadealt withthese in the oral
pleadings3.
2 Nigeria'sRejoinderparagraphs7.132-7.136.
3
CR2002/1p1p.3940, para107-108(Macdonald)Withregardto Cameroon'sclaimthat Nigeriais wrong in believingthat the boundarydrawnby
Cameroonon its maps does notrun along the watershed,but lies2 kms to the westof the
watershed,Nigeriarespectfully refersthe Courtto the maps submitted byCameroonwith its ,
Reply.Thesemaps showthat Nigeriaiscorrect.
1.8 Mount Kulito Bourrha
Nigeria has not beenable to understandCameroon'scommentsin respectof this area. No
position is given for, and Nigeria is unaware of, the village of Watre. Nigeria has in its
pleadings4setout itsexplanationfor its interpretationofthe boundaryin this area.
1.9 Source of theTsikakiri River
Nigeriahasnocommentsto add.
1.10 Budunga (from Mao Hessoto the summitof WamniRange)
There is no problem in identrfylngthe summit of the Wamni range as Cameroonclaims.
AlthoughNigeria agreesthat thereis a problemin identifying thelocationsof BoundaryPillars
6, 7 and 8, it believesthat, in its @eadings5i,t has usedthe available evidenceto presenta
sufficientlyaccurateinterpretationof the boundary in this area.
1.11 MayoSensche (sic)
Nigeriaagreesthat the problemhere is therepresentationof the watershed inthis area,but
does not understandhow the locationof thevillage of Batou couldaffect the positionof the
boundary.The Thomson-MarchandDeclaration makes nomentionof it and it clearly lieson
theNigeriansideof thewatershed.
4 Nigeria'sRejoinand CR200211 1, pp. 19-24,paras6-32(Macdonald).
5 Nigeria'sRejoinder,paragraphs7.145-7.168Nigeria believes that no demarcation consistent withthe Thornson-Marchand Declaration
could ever follow the boundaryclaimed by Cameroonin this area,and therefore does not
regardthissimplyas ademarcationproblem.
1.12 Sapeo
Nigeria believesthat there is no practical problem here because both sides observethe
boundarydelimited and demarcated by Loganand Le Brun in 1930~ C.ameroon includes
evidenceinthis respect inits ownpleadings7.
1.13 Typsan(sic)
In its oral pleadings8,Cameroonby its Counselobservedthat the Tipsan area "had always
undisputedlybeen consideredto be part of Cameroon,it was administeredfrom Kontchaand
itformed -atthe leveloftraditionalpoliticalstructur-san integralpart ofCameroonn.
Nigeriadoesnot deny thatthe Thomson-MarchandDeclarationdividesthe traditional Emirate
ofKontcha.This divisionof traditional landshasoccurredelsewherealongthe boundary,such
as at Bourhaand Yola.Nonethelessthe termsof the Declarationare clear, and the Tipsan
areais nowonthe Nigeriansideofthe internationalboundary.
Nigerianowunderstandsthat the wholeissueof Tipsan has been broughtbeforethe Courtby
Cameroonasa result of an exaggeratedclaimto territoryby the Emirof Kontcha,whichis in
clearcontradictionof theterms of the Thornson-MarchandDeclaration.~ameroon has never
explainedin detail in thewritten pleadingsor in the first round of theoral proceedingswhyit
does not agreewith theterms of the Declarationin this area. It hasnow finally done so,and
thebasisforits claim toTipsanis manifestlyunsustainable.
6
7 AnnexNR 154
8 Cameroon'sObservationsBookII,p301.
CR 200215 p. 65,para.45 (Simma)Cameroonclaimsthat "theproblemresultsfromNigeria'sdenial of thevalidityof Cameroon's
titleto Typsann.Nigeria doesindeeddeny thevalidityof Cameroon's title,whichappearsto be
based on a misconceived claim by a local ruler to territory lost duringthe colonial era. ,
Cameroon'sclaimis invalid.
Demarcation willinevitablyfollow the course of the Tipsanriver, as Nigeriahas consistently
argued throughout its written and oral pleadingsg. Nigeriahas every right to locate an
immigrationpostat any pointon its territory andthis is whatit has donehere. Camerooneven
admitsthat theimmigrationpostis"indisputedlysituatedinNigerianterrit~ry"'~.
1.14 The crossingof the MaioYin
Nigeriahas nocommentstoadd.
1.15 Mount Kombon
Nigeriabelievesthat any demarcationwill be inhibitedbythe defectivenatureof Article 60 of
the Thomson-Marchand Declaration. Nigeria has indeed shown that there is sufficient
informationto identify the peak,but Cameroon'scommentssimply serveto causeconfusion:
theproblem isthat the readilyidentifiableprominent peakis not locatedon the watershed,as
requiredbytheterms of Article60.
The remainder of Cameroon's comments are a complete misrepresentationof Nigeria's
arguments,which were clearlyset out in its Rejoinder(at paragraphs 7.88-7.9 an)d its oral
pleadings". Nigeria has alreadydrawn the Court'sattentionto the errorin the distancefrom
TonnHillto ltangHill givenby~ameroon'~.
~ p
9
CR 9811pp.24-25(WattsCR 9815 ,.42(Watts),Counter-Memorl,ara19.72-19. R76oinder,
lo paras7.169-7.1 8R,200'211p.59-65 ,ara80-014(Watts).
11 CameroonReply p.193,ara4.99.
12 CR 200211,pp.24-28 ,aras33-52(Macdonald).
CR 2002J1 9.26,para32(Macdonald).1.16 The areaof Lip, Yang
Nigeriahas the followingcommentson Cameroon's answersin respectof this sectionof the
boundary:
(a) Cameroondoes notspecifywhichriver hasthe name Makwe.Nigeriais notaware of
any suchnamefor a river in this area, and so can makeno detailedcomment.
(b) Cameroondoes nowappear to accept thatthe boundarypassesthrough the "pillar"
establishedby Dr Jeffreys in 1941. Nigeria is pleasedto note that this impliesthat
Cameroonaccepts the boundary was demarcatedby Dr Jeffreys at that time, and
has beenobservedsincethat date.
(c) By saying thatthe boundaryruns"throughthe pillarsetup by Jeffreysand thenalong
a crest line", Cameroon seems to have accepted the alignment for the boundary
proposedby Nigeriabetweenthecairn andTonn Hill.
(d) Nigeria wishes the Court to be aware that Cameroonsets,out its own view of the
boundary in a west to east direction,but Cameroonsetsout Nigeria'sview inan east
towest direction.
1.I7 Bissaula-Tosso
Cameroon appearsto be alleging that the 1946 Order in Council boundaryis shown on
Moisel'smap of 1913.This is clearly a ridiculousassertion.Thedraftsmenof the 1946Order
in Councilused thewords "an unnamedtributaryof the RiverAkbang(Heboro on sheet E of
Moisel's map on scale 1/300,000)". These wordswere chosen in order to assist in the
identificationof theRiverAkbang.
The draftsmenalsoomitted the numeralfrom the sheet reference,whichshould correctly be
sheetE2.Cameroonhas perpetuatedthiserror.Although Cameroonasserts that in this area the provisions of the Order in Council are
.
sufficientlyclear for a demarcation,an assertion thatNigeriaagreeswith, Cameroon persists
in ignoringthe requirementto usea tributarythat crossesthe Kentu-Bamendaroad. It offers,
no sensible explanationfor thisfailure.
1.I8 TheRiverSama
Nigeria denies that"the Partieshave alwayslookedto the northemtributaryof the Samaas
the courseof the boundary".Nigeria is unawareof anyevidenceto this effect,and Cameroon
has provided none. Nigeria has always maintainedthat the southem tributary is the point
where the Sama divides in two; it is not a position taken by Nigeria since the present Y
proceedingsbegan as Cameroonalleges.Again Cameroon producesnoevidenceto support
its statementto thelatter effect.
Contraryto Cameroon'sassertion that "no practicalproblemarises heren,Nigeria refersthe
Court to the issues of State responsibilitywhich both sides have raised in respect of this
general area. Nigeria believthat the problems relatto Tossoand Mberogoderivefrom a
complete misunderstandingon the part of Cameroonian local officials as to where the
boundarylies in thisarea.
1.19 Mberogo
Nigeria is not aware of any village or locality called Mbelogo on Cameroon's sideof the
boundary.If one doesexist,Cameroonhas producedno definitiveevidenceof it, apartfroma
mark, withoutco-ordinates,ona map submitted withthe ~eply'~.
Cameroon'sclaim thatthere are"several localities bearing idenlr similarnames oneither
side of the boundary"is unsupportedbyanyproof.Nonetheless,it is immaterial here,because
the issues raised by Nigeria concern the Ni~erianvillage of Mberogo,as Nigeria clearlydemonstratedin the oral pleadings14.Thisvillage is in Nigerianterritory no matter which of
Cameroon'sor Nigeria'sinterpretationof the boundarybetweenthe Sama River and Mount
Tossois correct.
1.20 Pillar64
Nigeria is pleasedto note that, during the course of the oral pleadings1=,Cameroonagreed
thatthe defectivedelimitationinthis area, albeita minorone, couldbe correctedas proposed
byNigeria.Asa consequence, Nigeriahas nofurther commentsto add.
13 RCparagraphs12.36-12. andMap R27.
14 CR 200201pp.58-59p,ara73-78(Watts).
15 CR 200212p.70,para28 (Shaw)I1 Additional pointsnoted byCameroon
.
Cameroonincludesasa final section ofits answerssomeadditionalcommentsonsectorsof
the boundary at Dorofi,the Obudu cattle ranchand at boundary pillar 103.Noevidence is
included or referredto in support of its allegations of Nigeria's breachof the terms of the
relevant instruments.Nigeriahasthefollowingcommentson these specific points:
1. The question raised by Judge Fleischhauer refers only to those areas "in which
Nigeriaconteststhe correctnessof thedelimitation". Nigeria does not inthese three
instances contestthe correctnessof thedelimitation, and therefore theseareas are
beyondthe scopeof the questionraisedby Judge Fleischhauer.
2. In anyevent, Nigeria acceptsthat the terms of therelevant legal instruments (inthe
case of Dorofi,the ThomsonMarchandDeclaration,and for Obudu andBP 103, the
April 1913 Anglo-GermanTreaty) are sufficiently clear and precise to delimit the
boundaryin theseareas.
3. Furthermore,the boundarydelimited by the 1913Anglo-GermanTreatyhas already
been demarcatedon the ground by a number of boundary pillars. Nigeriaaccepts
this demarcation.Nigeria also believesthat any outstandingissues in Dorofican be
resolvedby demarcation.
4. In the case of boundary pillar 103, the issue raised by Cameroon relates to
individuals crossingthe boundary and causing damage to property. This has not
been sanctioned by Nigeria. More importantly, Nigeria does not view this as a
problem of the delimitation contained in the instruments and therefore makes no
furthercomment. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING
THE LAND AND MARITIMEBOUNDARY
BETWEENCAMEROON ANDNIGERIA
(Cameroonv. Nigeria: EquatorialGuineaintervening)
Oral Hearings
18February - 21 March2002
Responsesofthe Federal Republicof Nigeria
tothe Judges' Questions
4 April2002QUESTIONSOF JUDGE FLEISCHHAUER
"I have fwointemlated questionsfor bothParties. Myquestionsare the following:
How was theland boundary in thosespecifiedamas in which Nigeria conteststhe correctness
of the delimitation,inpradice handledbeforeand afterIndependence?
Inparticular,where hasthe courseof theboundaryinfhoseareasbeen treatedas running?"
RESPONSE
1. In Nigeria's preliminary answer to these questions' Nigeria noted that the 22
locations at which questions regarding the delimitation of the land boundary as
described in the Thomson-MarchandDeclarationor the 1946 Order in Council arose
fell into two different categories. Thirteen of them were locations at which Nigeria
itselfdiscerned defects inthe very terms of the delimitation, that is in the delimitation
as such (one of the locationsin this category -BP64 -is no longer in dispute, since
Cameroon accepts Nigeria's suggestedinterpretationfor that location2).The other 9
are locations where, so far as Nigeriais concerned,the delimitation is both clear and
adequate, but where nevertheless Cameroon has adopted positions which depart
from that clear and adequate delimitation in the relevant instrument, with the result
that Nigeriafelt it necessaryto drawattention tothose locations.
2. It is apparent that it is only in respect of the first 13 locations that (in the terms of
Judge Fleischhauer's questions) "Nigeria contests the correctness of the
delimitation". Nigeria will deal with those 13 locations in Part 1of this Response.
However,ratherthan limit itselfto those locations,andjust in case such a reading of
- - -
1 CR 2002/19, pp.36-37, paras2833 (Watts).
2
CR2002/2, p.70,para.28 (Shaw);CR2002/10, p.43,para.8 Watts). Judge Fleischhauer's questions isunduly strict, Nigeriawill in Part IIofthis Response
cover alsothe other 9 locations.
3.
In respect of each location the questions put by Judge Fleischhauer require three
mattersto be treated:
(i) how the land boundarywas handled beforeIndependence;
how the land boundarywas handled after Independence;and
(ii)
(iii) where the course ofthe boundary has beentreated as running.
4. In addition Nigeria will, by way of background to its reply on those three matters,
make a brief general comment on the location, including for example relevant
populationor topographical considerations.
5. Beforeansweringthe questions,it maybe helpfulto make afew preliminarypoints:
The boundary betweenthe mouthof the Ebejiand BP 64, a distanceof 1,430
(i)
kilometres, has neverbeen demarcated infull.
(ii) At the time of the 1931 Declaration, pressure on land was not great and
isolated differences could more economically be solved by local meetings
involvingboth parties.
(iii) Indeed,where differencesdidarise prior to Independence, the district officers
on the ground normally resolved the matter themselves, generally without
referring the matter back to the central administration. This system of
boundary resolutionwas continued after Independence by representativesof
the local government areas. Thus before and after Independence, the vast majority of the burden of boundary management was devolved to local
officials.
Visits by local district officers before Independenceto the area often resulted
(iv)
in these officers showingthe local populationwhere the boundaryarea was to
run, making an ad hoc and informal demarcation. Field trip visits by the
Nigerian legal team to some of these areas show that these ad hoc
boundaries arestillobservedtoday bythe local populations.PART I: Locations in which Nigeria considers the delimitation of the boundary to be
defective.
The mouth of the Ebedji
(1)
(i) Nigeria's commentson the area generally are set out in full at pages 322-330 of
Nigeria'sRejoinder.The Parties agreethat theEbedji hastwo mouths3,and that the
position of the two channels has not changedsince 19314. In order to attempt to
resolve the dispute betweenthe two States as to the location of the "mouth",the
experts of thetwo States, within the framework of the LCBC, made a preliminary
*.(
agreement asto a point (point V) to representthe so-called mouth. However,this 3
point is not situated at the mouth of any watercourse,and is not agreed byNigeria,
as beingin conformity withthe Thomson-MarchandDeclaration.
(ii) Before lndependencethe boundary in the area was left largely to the Nigerianlocal
authorities which regulated and taxed the fishermen of the region. Most of the
fishermen in this area came from Wulgo. To the knowledge of Nigeria,there was
neverany disagreementbetweenthe States asto the locationof theboundary.
(iii) After lndependence the boundary in this area continued to be handled by the
w
respectivelocalauthoritiesof Nigeriaand Cameroon.
The course ofthe boundary in thisarea has beentreatedas running alongtheeastern
(iv)
channel.The areato thewest of that channelhasalwaysbeen administeredby Ngala
local government area, and the regulation and licensingof fishing in this area has
alwaysbeencanied outby Nigeria.The Courtshouldalsobe awarethat local~igerian
communities,particularlyfrom Wulgo, have fished inthe waters of the north-eastern
3
4 RC paragraph3.20and NR paragraph7.9
RC,paragraph3.21 andNRparagraph 7.9 channel without protest from Cameroon and without any attempt by Cameroon to
regulateor taxthem.
(2) Narki
Byway of general comment, this area is not the subject of any acrimonious dispute
(i)
between the parties. The problem arises out of the fact that the 1931 Thornson-
Marchand Declaration does not define which of several watercourses, in the area
around Narki,the boundaryfollows.
(ii) Before Independence,this area of the land boundary was administered by the British
and French district officers.In particular in the period from921-1926, officers of the
two administrationswere sent out by their respective Governors to propose a more
detailed delimitation of the boundary than had been supplied in the Milner-Simon
Agreement of 1919. In this area, in May 1921,officer Lethem,for Great Britain,and
hisFrench counter-partsigned a sketch mapdepicting the boundaryagreed between
them Inthis area5.This boundary passessome300 metresnorth of Limaniand south
ofNarki.
After Independence, the local populations continued to observe and regulate the
(iii)
boundary definedby the local officers. Tarmoa and Narkiremained Nigerian villages
under the administration of Bama Local Govemment Area, within Bomo State of
Nigeria. This LocalGovemment Area has, sinceIndependence,consistently provided
water supplies,healthcareand educationand other socialservicesto the residentsof
these two villages. Limani remained under Cameroonian administration, and Nigeria
doesnot disputethis.
5 AnnexNR 151. The course of the boundary in this area has been treated as running along the
(iv)
watercourse depictedin the May 1921Anglo-French agreement,leavingTarmoa and
Narki to Nigeria and Lirnani to Cameroon, as shown on Figure 7.4 and outlined in
paragraph 7.30of Nigeria's Rejoinder.This has never been protestedor disputed by
Cameroon,and,to Nigeria'sknowledge,the inhabitantsw-exist peacefully.
(3) Kirawa River
(i) By way of general comment, this is an area inhabited by a large Nigerian farming
community. The boundary in this area is delimited by Article 17 of the 1931 w
Thornson-Marchand Declaration, butit does notdefine which of two branches of the
Kirawa River the boundaryfollows.
(ii) Before Independence the boundary in this area was handled by the local district
officers on the ground. It is worth pointing out that under the Milner-Simon
Declaration of1919, depicted on Moisel'smap 83 (an extract of which is at Figure
7 7of Nigeria's Rejoinderj, the boundaryfollows the eastern channel of the Kirawa
nver
w
(iii) After Independence, the boundary in this area has not been the subject of further
demarcation by the local government administrations. However, Cameroonian
farmers have encroached onto the area to the west of the eastern channel,
presumably to take advantage of thefertile soil ofthe area.
(iv) Nigeria has treated the course of the boundary in this area as running along the
easternchannelofthe KirawaRiver, asdepicted byMilner andSimon on Moisel's map
in 1919, and as set out in paragraph 7.35 of Nigeria's Rejoinder. However, local
Cameroonianfarmersappearto believethat the western channelis theboundary.(4) Kohom River
(i) By way of general comment, this area is remote and relatively uninhabited. The
boundary in this area is delimited by Article 19 of the 1931 Thomson-Marchand
Declaration, which is defective because it assumes that the source of the River
Kohom is on Mount Ngossi,which is notthe case.
Before Independence, the boundary in this area was visited by district officers
(ii)
(Featherstone and his French counterpart)in March 1926, and a sketch map was
produced (Figure 7.9 of Nigeria's Rejoinder).This sketch map includesthe mistaken
belief that the Kohom River rises at MountNgossi. The local inhabitantswere told of
the position of the boundary running along the Kohom River in the direction of
Ngossi. This information hasbeen passedon throughthe generations.
(iii) After lndependencethe boundary in this area continued to be handled by the small
number of local farmers, who continued to follow the line shown to them by the
district officers in j926. Whenthe Nigerianlegal teamvisited the area in March2000,
they were shown the course of the boundary by the local village chief. This reflected
the boundarydepicted on the 1926 map.
(iv) The courseof the boundary in this area has been treated as running as depicted in
Figure 7.8 of Nigeria's Rejoinder,and asfurther outlinedin paragraphs7.40 and 7.41
of the Rejoinder. This hasbeen observedon the ground since 1926, and, as far as
Nigeria is aware, there is no dispute on the ground, although Cameroon's maps
display a linewhich bears no relationto either the 1926local agreement betweenthe
district officersor the termsofthe 1931 ~eclaration.(5) Mount Kuli to Bourha
(i) Byway of generalcommentonthisarea, theboundaryhere is delimited by reference
to the "incorrectlineofthe watershedshownby Moisel on his map".This sectionwas
referred to at length in the first round of Nigeria's oral pleadings6.It is a relatively
well-populated area, with some large towns, such as Bourha (in Cameroon), and
significantfarming communitieson both sidesof the boundary.
(ii) Before Independencethe boundary in this area had been handledat a local level.
There is also evidence that there was a visit by the British and French
L1'
administrations to the area in 1920'. The resulting pmces-verbalstated that the
1
boundary should follow the centre of a track from Muti towards Bourha,and that
Bourhalies 1.5 kilometresto the east of thefrontier.
(iii) Since Independence,the boundaryin this areahas continuedto be administeredat a
local level. Nigeriais not aware of any significantdispute.See, however,section (16)
belowfor the area southof Bourha.
(iv) The courseof the boundaryin thisarea hasbeen treatedby Nigeriaas runningalong
the line set out in Nigeria'sRejoinderat paragraph7.59 and depicted onFigures7.10
and 7.11 of Nigeria's Rejoinder.It is clear from Nigeria's counterclaimsthat local w
Cameroonian officialsdo not havethe sameviewpoint.
(6) Koja (Kotcha)
(i) By way of general comment, the boundary in this area runs close to the important
Nigerianvillageof Koja(previouslyKotcha),which hasa largefarmingpopulation.
7 CR 2002111pp. 19-24, para6-32(Macdonald).
AnnexNR 152. Before Independence the boundary in this area was handled by the local district
(ii)
officers. The 1931 Thomson-Marchand Declaration itself refers to provisional
landmarks erected in 1920 by Vereker (for Great Britain) and Piion (for France).
Nigeriacanconfirmthat these landmarkswere cairnsof stones, althoughonly onehas
been found. In any event,the referenceto the landmarkssuggests that the boundary
deviated slightly from the watershed in the vicinity of Koja, which lies across the
watershed.
Since the 1930s,the village of Kojahas continuedto expand. This processhas been
unchallengedby Cameroon.
(iii) After Independencethe boundary in this area has continued to be administeredand
maintained at a local level. South-westof Koja there is a cairn of stones at 10" 04'
43" North, 13" 17' 49 East which identifies the boundary. There does not appear to
be anydisputeas to the locationof the boundary.
(iv) The course of the boundary in this area has been treated as running as set out in
Nigeria'sRejoinder at paragraphs7.62 and 7.63, and as shown in Nigeria'sRejoinder
at F~gure 7.13.
(7) Source of the TsikakiriRiver
By way of general comment, this area is remote and a long distance from the
(i)
Nigerian road network. The problem arises here as the 1931 Thomson-Marchand
Declaration does not specify which of three possible sources of the Tsikakiri River
the boundaryis supposedto follow.
Although the area is sparsely inhabited and remote, Nigeria is satisfied that the
(ii)
course of the river depicted by Nigeria on Figure 7.14 of its Rejoinder formed the boundaryin this area. The areawas visited by district officersVereker and Pition in
the summer of1920.They tracedthe courseof the Tsikakiri"and carefullyfix[ed] the
localbo~ndaries".~
(iii) After Independence,the localpeople onbothsides haverecognisedthis demarcation
asthe boundaryand there hasnever beenany problemreported.
(iv) Nigeriasubmits thatthe courseof the boundaryinthis area intendedby thedraftersof
the 1931 Declarationfor the reasonsset out in paragraph 7.67of Nigeria'sRejoinder,
has been treatedas runningto the southernbranchof the Tsikakiri.This is set out in
(II
full in paragraph7.69 of Nigeria'sRejoinderand depictedon Figure7.14 ofthesame.
(8) Jimbare
(i) Byway of general comment, thisarea is relativelywell-populatedby Nigerians.The
problem here is that the delimitation containedin the 1937 Thomson-Marchand
Declaration hasa number of errorswhich render a demarcationvirtually impossible.
These errors have been outlinedin Nigeria'sRejoinderat paragraph7.71 andwere
furtherexplainedby Sir ArthurWatts inthe first roundof Nigeria's oralpleadingsg.
w
(ii) BeforeIndependencethe boundaryin this areawas visited by districtofficersLogan,
for Great Britain, andLe Brun,for France, in1929-1930.They acknowledgedthat the
proposed delimitation by the two Parties contained in the 1929 agreement (which
developedeventuallyinto the 1931 Declaration),was impossibleto demarcate.They
thereforereached agreementon a correct, amendedline, whichwas set out in great
detail in a proces-vehal, signed on 16 October 1930. This line was shown to the
localpopulationon the ground andhas sincebeen passedonfrom generationto
- -
8 Annex NR 152.
9 CR 2002/10 pp.49-52 paras.35-45 (Watts). 11
generation. Although the terms of the pro&s-verbalwere not included in the 1931
Declaration, the amendment was included on the map eventually produced to
accompany the ~eclaration'~.
(iii) After Independencethe boundary in this area continuedto be handled at a local level
by the residentfanning population. The demarcationshown to the local population in
1930 continued to be observed without dispute between the populations living on
both sides of the boundary. A field triby Nigeria's legal team to the area in June
2000 confirmed this information, and local resident farmers showed the team where
the boundary runs. This accorded almost precisely with the Logan-Le Brun pmces-
verbal.
(iv) The course of the boundary in this area has been treated as running along the line
depicted in Figure 7.15 of Nigeria's Rejoinderfor the last 70 years. The details set
out in the 1930 proces-verbal can be followed on the ground with ease, and in
pat%cular,Kombunga Rock is readily identifiable. There is consequentlyno problem
on the ground betweenthe parties.
(i) By way of general comment, this area includes a substantial population living in a
number of substantial Nigerian villages, including Sapeo, ~amberb, Leinde and
Jumba. Nigeria has produced evidence of its long standing administrationof this area
and of the fact that residents of Sapeo participated in the Northern Cameroons
Plebiscites of 1959 and 1961 (and were therefore considered as part of British
administered ~ameroons)".
11 CR 2002110p. 54, paras.52-53 (Watts).
See paragraphs7.80 and7.81 of Nigeria'RejoinderandAnNRx156-168. The problem here arises from the problematic delimitationof the 1929 Thomson
Marchandagreementand the resultingdemarcationbyofficers Logan andLe Brun in
thisarea.
(ii) Before lndependencethe boundaryin thisarea was visited by districtofficersLogan,
for Great Britain, andLe Brun,for France,in 1929-1930.They acknowledgedthat the
proposeddelimitationby the two Parties containedin the 1929 Thomson-Marchand
agreement (which developed eventually into the 1931Declaration)was problematic.
They also acknowledged that Sapeo was a Nigerian village administered by the
British. Theytherefore reached agreementon a correctdemarcation,which was set
out in the same detailed proces-verbal, signed on 16 October 1930. This W
demarcation was not only shown to the local population on the ground, but also
included a series of large caims of stones at points along the boundary. Three at
least of these caims remain in place today, and two were shown in Nigeria's
Rejoinder (at Plate 1) and during the oral proceedings (at Tab 39 of the Judges
Folder for the First Round). As with Jimbare immediatelyto the north, the terms of
the prods-verbal were not included in the Thomson-Marchand Declaration,but the
amendment was nonetheless included on the map eventually produced to
accompanytheDeclaration12.
w
(iii) After lndependence the local population continued to observe the demarcated
boundary,andthere appears neverto havebeen any dispute about this. A fieldtrip
by Nigeria's legalteamto the areain June2000 confirmedthe existenceofthe cairns
andthe practiceof thepopulationin respectingthe LoganLe Brun proces-verbal.
- -
12 CR 2002110p.54, paras.52-53 (Watts).(iv) The course of the boundary in this area has been treated as running alongthe line
demarcatedaccordingto the Logan-Le Brun pmces-verbal, which is set out in full in
paragraph7.83 of Nigeria'sRejoinderand at Figure7.16.There hasnever, to Nigeria's
knowledge,been a dispute betweenthe two States, at a local levelor othewise, as to
the locationof the boundaryinthisarea. FurthermoreSapeohas beenadministeredby
Nigeriafor over70 yearswithout protest,and Nigeriahasproducedevidence of this in
itsejoinder.
(10) Namberu-Banglang
(i) By way of general comment, this area is demarcated by Article 38 of the 1931
Thornson-Marchand Declaration, which refers erroneously to a valley going to the
north-eastand then south-east, when in fact no such valley exists. In order to make
any sense at all, it can only refer to a valley going north westthen southwest.
Furthermorethe Logan-Le Brun pmces-verbalof 1930, which sought to rectify this
problem, corrected the error, but introduced a further problem in its reference to a
saddle inthe HosereBanglang.This is explainedfully in paragraphs7.85 and7.86 of
N~gena'sRejoinder.
(ii)+(iii) Beforeand after Independencethe boundary in this area has beenadministered at a
local level. It is Nigeria'sunderstanding that there has never been a dispute on the
groundasto the correctlocationofthe boundary.
(iv) The course of the boundary in this area has always been treated as running north
west and then southwest up a valley, as explained in paragraph 7.87 and depicted
on Figure7.17 andonMap 13, BookII of Cameroon'sReply. The Position of MountKombon
(11)
(i) By way of general comment, this area is where the 1931 Thornson-Marchand
Declarationand the 1946Order inCouncil meet. Theterms of Articles60 and 61 of
the 1931 Declarationare also defective:these errors have been set out in Nigeria's
Rejoinderat paragraphs7.91-7.96, and during Nigeria'sfirst roundoral pleadings'3.
Nigeria hasshown in itspleadings its methodfor identifyingwhat it believes is the
"fairly prominentpointedpeak" (ItangHill). Furthermorethe boundaryis requiredto
follow a watershed, which, due to the complicatedwatercourse pattern, and the
resulting fact that the watershed does not pass through ltang Hill, it cannot do.
Despite being a relatively remotearea, the region nonetheless contains a large W
Nigerianfarming populationin theNigeriantown of Tamnyarandthe small village of
Sanya.
(ii) Before Independence the boundaryin this area was administered by the district
officers. Nigeriahas nodocumentaryevidenceof any visitsto this areaby the district
officers. However,thereare documentswhich show concernaboutthe delimitationin
this areal4.
After Independence,there was nofurther clarificationof the boundary in this area.
(iii)
V
The local population, essentially comprising Nigeriansfrom the Mambila tribe, have
continued to regard the top of the escarpment as the boundary. This boundary,
unlike most of the rest of the Nigeria/Cameroonboundary, is a tribal boundary
betweentheMambila tribeon the high MambillaPlateauand the Camerooniansfrom
the lowlands.The Nigerianpopulationsof Sanya and Tamnyar continue to cultivate
the farmlandson the topof the escarpmentwithout protest.
l3 CR 2002111 pp.24-28, par33-52 (Macdonald).
14 AnnexNR 169.(iv) The course ofthe boundary in this area has alwaysbeen treated by both Parties as
running along the escarpment, depicted in red on Figure 7.18 and described in
paragraph7.96of the Rejoinder.
(12) The Boundary westward som Tonn Hilto the Mbur i iver
(i) By way of general comment,this area is covered by the final section of the second
schedule to the 1946 Order in Council. It is impossible to apply the terms of that
schedule to the features onthe ground.
(ii) Before Independencethe boundary in thisarea was handled by the district officers. It
was, of course, at that time an internal administrativeboundary between the British
administration of Northern and Southern Cameroons, and not an intemational
boundary. Nigeriahas producedevidence in its Rejoinderof a demarcationexplained
to the localpopulationby theSenior DistrictOfficer in Bamenda, Dr Jeffreysin 1941.
Nigeria has not been able to obtain copies of the Order made by Dr Jeffreys, but a
note of a meeting in 1953'~refers to this Order and sets out the description of the
boundary contained inthat Order. Cameroon itself provides evidencethat this part of
the boundary is dictated by "le tract3des frontieres depuis 1941 et un proces-verbal
de reuniondu 13 aoQt1953"'~.
After Independenceand the 1961 plebiscite, the boundary in this area became an
(iii)
international boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon. The local population in the
area of Lipand Yang continuedto observethe boundarydemarcated by Dr Jeffreys.
This is an areawhere there aresubstantialfarming communitieswith very fertile soil,
and small local disputes havearisen betweenthe Nigerian population of Lip and the
Cameroon populationof Yangover farmingrights.
15 AnnexNR 171
16 MemorialofCameroon Annex MC 258, p. 2153.(iv) Exceptfor recent Cameroonianattempts at encroachment, whichhave beenresisted
bythe Nigerianpopulation,the courseof the boundaryinthis areahas beentreated as
runningalong the Jeffreys boundarywhich is set out in full in paragraphs 7.107 of
Nigeria'sRejoinderanddepictedat Figure 7.20.
(13) SamaRiver
(i) By way ofgeneral comment,thisarea is also delimitedby the 1946 Orderin Council.
The scheduleis unclearas to thepoint at whichthe SamaRiverdividesintotwo.
(ii) BeforeIndependence,this areawas administered bythe Britishon both sidesof this
.-
administrativeboundarybetweenNorthern and SouthernCameroons.Therewas no w
need here, a relatively sparsely populated area, for careful administrationof the
boundaryas such.
(iii) After Independencethe boundaryin this area has been administeredlocally.There
are local disputes as to the location of the boundary, although Cameroon has
claimedvillages muchfurther to the north than the boundary shownon the maps of
both of the Parties. Indeed, it appears that local Cameroonian officials use the
GamanaRiver as the boundary,thusprovoking disputes,especiallyin the villagesof
Tossoand Mberogo.
The course of the boundary in this area has been treated by the local Nigerian
(iv)
population,initiallywithoutprotest,as runningto the southern tributaryflowinginto the
Sama Riveras depictedon Figure 7.21 and as statedin the text of Nigeria'sRejoinder
at paragraph7.116.PART II: Locations where Cameroon fails correctly to apply the agreeddelimitation of
the boundary
The Watershed from Ngossi to Roumsiki
(14)
(i) By way of general comment, this area is a long stretch of boundary running from
Ngossi at lo0 58' North,13O 42' East in the north, to Roumsiki at lo0 31' North, 13"
35' East inthe south. The boundaryfollows the watershed of the Mandara Mountains
for by far the greater part of its length in this section, as set out in Articles4 of
the 1931 Thomson-Marchand Declaration. The area was discussed in detail during
Nigeria's first round oral proceedings". It is also outlined in Nigeria'sejoinderat
paragraphs7.124-7.131.
This long boundary section is inhabitedby farming communitieson both sides of the
boundary. Nigeria believesthat the terms of the 1931 Declarationaresufficientlyclear
and preciseto demarcate the boundaryon the ground.
Before lndependencethe boundary in this area was administeredata local level, but
(ii)
access to thetop of theescarpment is difficultfrom the Nigerian sideof the boundary
as there is novehicularaccess.
(iii) After lndependence the boundary in this area continued to be administeredlocally,
by the local government areas. In recent years, there have been significant
Cameroonencroachmentsonto the Nigerianside of thewatershedboundary,notably
atTuru, butalso at other locations. Nigeria does not accept this encroachmentonto
its territory,and has notacquiesced in it.
17
CR 20021 1pp.36-41, paras92-113 (Macdonald).(iv) In Nigeria'sviewthe courseof the boundaryin this area is the watershedset out in
detail in Articles 20-24 of the 1931 Declaration(with the exception of the area of
cultivationaroundthe Nigerianvillageof Wula). It is also depictedin Figures7.23-7.27
of Nigeria'sRejoinder.Nigeriaadheresto this boundaryand respectfullyrequeststhat
its interpretationbe upheld.Cameroon,on the other hand, doesnot acceptthe terms
of the 1931 Declarationand pleadsthat its interpretationof the boundary,following a
coursewhich canin noway be saidto be on the watershed,and therebyclaimingover
2,000hectares of Nigeriantemtory,is correctandhas been acceptedby Nigeria.This
is manifestlyincorrect.
(15) Turu
Thisarea hasbeendiscussed under(14) above.It appearsthat Cameroonis claiming
approximately100 hectaresof Nigerianterritory,and has allowed a largevillage to
develop,muchof itto thewest ofthewatershed boundary. Nigeria doesnotaccept this
situationand requeststhat its interpretationof the watershed boundaryin this area,
pursuant toArticle20 of the 1931Thomson-MarchandDeclaration,andas depictedon
Figure7.28 of itsRejoinder,be upheld.
(16) Maduguva
w
(i) Byway of general comment,this area is heavilypopulatedand farmed by Nigerians.
These Nigerians have been subjected to intimidation, extortion and violence by
Cameroonian officials, who maintain that they are on Cameroonian territory. As
Nigeria demonstrated in paragraphs 7.137-7.144 of its Rejoinder, this area is
indisputablyinNigeriaaccording tothe termsof the 1931Declaration.
(ii) BeforeIndependence theboundaryin this areawas administered on alocal level. In
thecolonial era,the boundary wasvisitedbylocaldistrictofficers,rrymoreand Petit, in 192018 ,nd they assigned villages in the area to each country. Maduguvawas
clearly assignedto GreatBritain.
(iii) Since Independence there has been increased local interest in the boundary
because the Cameroonian local chief of Bourha is claiming areas placed within
Nigeriaas a resultof the1931 Declaration,and threatens Nigerianfarmers in the area
of Maduguva,extorts moneyfrom them, steals their property and destroyscrops.This
has been the subject of a number of complaintsat a local level, and now at central
level. It has also formed part of a counterclaimby Nigeria as set out in paragraphs
25.50-25.57of Nigeria'sCounter-Memorialand Counterclaim CC22 at page 743 of
Nigeria'sRejoinder.
(iv) Nigeriahasalways regardedtheboundary asfollowingthe watershedsouth of Bourha,
therebyattributingMaduguvato Nigeria.This complieswith the requirementsset outin
Article25 ofthe 1931 Declaration.Cameroon,however, arguesthat thetraditional ruler
of Bourha claims this land as part of his original area of jurisdiction.This does not
comply with the terms of the 1931 Declaration. Nigeria does not accept the
Camerooniancontentionand has protestedaboutthe intimidationand violencecamed
out by Cameroonianofficials againstthe Nigerianpopulation living and farming tothe
west of thewatershedboundary.
(i) By way of general comment on this area, it is relatively uninhabited (except around
boundary pillar 6). This section of the boundary marksthe pointwhere the boundary
leaves a long section of riverine boundary and moves on to join a long section of
watershed boundary.
18
AnnexNR 152.(ii)+(iii)Beforeand afterIndependencethe boundaryinthis area washandledon a local level.
The boundarywas demarcatedin 1900by the Anglo-Germanboundarycommission,
which establishedboundarypillar 6, on the bank of the Maio Hesso,and boundary
pillars7 and 8 onsmallhills.No firm evidenceofthese threeboundarypillars remains.
Nigeriahas notbeenabletofind anyevidenceofadditionalvisits bylocalofficerssince
that date, until recent visits by members from Nigeria's National Boundary
Commission,whowere unableto findanytraceofthe old boundarypillars.
(iv) The course of theboundaryin this areahas always been treated asrunningfrom the
point on the MaioHesso,north of Beka,which is shown on Figure7.30 of Nigeria's
-
Rejoinder, and which used to be marked by a boundary pillar. It then runs in a I
straight line, as indicated on Moisel's map sheet D3, through boundary pillar 7 to
boundarypillar8, beforeittravels ina straightlineto the summitof the range,
as required by Article34 of the 1931 Thomson-Marchand Declaration. This is
depicted in detail in Figures7.30 and7.31 of Nigeria's Rejoinder.Nigeria confirms
that this is the location observed by the local population on both sides of the
boundary.
Cameroon's interpretation,on the other hand, does not comply with the terms of
Articles33 and34of the 1931Declaration,as itstarts at a pointfar to the north of the
r-
correct departurepoint on the bank ofthe Maio Hesso anddoes not run in a straight
lineor in the rightdirectiontothe summitof the Wamni Range.
(18) Maio Senche
(i) Bywayof general comment,this areaofthe boundary is coveredbyArticle 35 of the
1931 Thornson-Marchand Declaration.It is clearly described as a watershed boundary. It is also very remoteand inaccessible. The population is scarce in this
area.
(ii)+(iii) Before and after Independence, because of the remoteness of the location, the
boundary in this area has not been managed actively. It is too remote for district
officersbefore Independence,or localgovernment officials afterIndependence,to visit
and maintain the boundary. However, because the boundary in this vicinity is a
straightforward watershed boundary, Nigerian officials have not considered it
necessaryto concentratescarceresourceson supervisingit. Nonethelessthe Nigerian
district head of Nassarawo-Komaconfirms that the village marked Batou on Figure
7.33 ofthe Rejoinderis knownlocallyas Batodi Dampti,and is a village in his domain.
The villagersthere pay taxes to the district head, Mallam HamanjodaAbba. In 1985,
there was a visit to the area by the then Military Governor,Colonel Yohanna Madaki,
togetherwith localgovernmentofficials.As a resultof that visit, the local Government
set up a special project calledthe KomaPeople DevelopmentProgramme, toassist in
the welfareof thepeoplein the boundaryarea, includingBatodiDampti.
The courseof the boundaryin this area has been treated by Nigeria as runningalong
(iv)
the watershed,asdepicted in Figure7.33of its Rejoinder,andfurther outlined during
the oral proceedingslg. Cameroon, on the other hand, takes the boundary off the
watershed, to follow a series of streams, thereby attributing to Cameroon the small
village of Batou(BatodiDampti)and some1,200 hectaresof land territory.
19 CR 2002111 p.34 paras.79-82 (Macdonald).(19) Tipsan
(i) By way of general comment, a dispute over Tipsan was raised by Cameroonin its
Applicationand relied on by it as evidenceof Nigeria'shostile incursionsalong the
boundary,and thereforeallegedlyas proofthat Nigeriadid not accept the delimitation
instruments. Nigeriahas discussed theissue of Tipsanmany times in its writtenand
oral pleadings2'. Nigeria has explained with great care and in great detail the
relatively simple fact that the Nigerian village of Tipsan lies on the Nigerianside of
the line provided for by the 1931 Thomson-LlarchandDeclaration,The termsof the
Declaration in this area are very clear. Cameroon has made claims that Nigeria is
-
violating the terms of the Declaration in this area. This is patently not the case. W
Furthermore, Cameroon has consistentlyattempted to mislead the Court, and has
made contradictoryclaims as to where it believes the boundary runs in this area.
Cameroon has neverthelessnow acceptedthat the immigrationpost is "indisputedly
situated in Nigerianterrit~ry"~'.
(ii)+(iii)Before Independencethe boundaryin this area was administeredby districtofficers.
The colonial powersagreed that France,now Cameroon,would be allowedto retain
the Bare-Fort Lamy track within its territory, and therefore placed the boundary
2 kilometreswestofthis track.This is reflectedin the 1931 Declaration.Thedivision of
w
territory dividedthe emirate of Kontcha.After lndependencethe boundaryinthis area
continuedto be handledat a locallevel.Tipsanbecamean issueonly whenCameroon
protestedagainst Nigeria'sbuildingan immigrationposton its sideof the boundaryon
the roadfrom Toungoto Kontcha.
Rejoinder, paras.7.169-7.181, CR2002110 pp. 59-65,paras.80-104(Watts)2-19.76,
21 CameroonReply p. 193,para4.99.(iv) The course of the boundary in this area has always been treated by Nigeria and
Nigeriansas running in accordancewiththe termsof the 1931Declaration,which are
clear and can be easily implementedon the ground. It is depicted on Figure7.34 of
Nigeria's Rejoinder.
Cameroon,on the other hand,has offeredno explanationasto why it refusesto agree
that the boundaryinthis areafollowsthe clear termsof the1931Declaration.
(20) The MburiRiver to the old Franco-British Frontier
(i) By way of general comment, this area has been dealt with in (12) above. It is
appropriate here only to add a few additional points.The course of the boundary in
this areahas beentreated as runningalong the Jeffreys boundary, whichwas told to
the local residents in 1941, confirmed at a local meeting in August 1953 and has
been observedonthe groundsince that date. Thecourse of the boundary is depicted
on Figure 7.37 of Nigeria's Rejoinderand is described in detail in paragraphs7:99-
7.111 of the Rejoinder. It was further described during the course of the oral
proceedingsz2.
Cameroon's claim in this area bears no relation to the course of the boundary
described with errors in the 1946 Order in Counciand defined more preciselyby the
localdistrictofficer,Dr Jeffreys,in 1941.
(21) Bissaula-Tosso
(i) By way of general comment, the course of the boundary in this area is clearly
describedby the Second Scheduleto the 1946 Order in Council. Nigeria has set out
in detailthe course of the boundary in paragraphs 7.188-7.196 of the Rejoinder and
22 CR 20021 1pp.2832, paras.53-74(Macdonald). depicted itin Figure7.38 of the Rejoinder.Nigeria gavea further explanationduring
the courseof the oralhearings23.
The areais remoteand sparsely populatedb , ut theareato whichthe disputebetween
the Partiesrelatesisvery large,encompassingapproximately7,500hectares.
(ii) Before Independence the boundary in this area was an internal administrative
division between British administered Northernand SouthernCameroons.Since the
area was not an internationalboundary and was sparsely inhabited,the boundary
area was,to an extent, neglectedby the local officials.Nigeria can find no reference
to anyvisitsby thedistrict officers.
However,recordsshow thatthearea wasvisited bysurveyors from the Directorate of
Overseas Surveysin the early1950s. SurveyorsfromSouthernCameroonstravelled
as far as Gararnayuhill (shownnear the source of the southerntributaryon Figure
7.38 inNigeria's Rejoinder).Thiswas thenorthern extentof the areawithintheir remit,
and confirmsthe positiontakenby Nigeriaas to the positionofthe boundary.
(iii) After Independencethe boundary inthisarea was administered,to an extent, by the
local government officials. However, the remoteness of the location made the
maintenanceandsupervisionof the boundarydifficult
The courseof the boundary inthis areahas been treatedby Nigeriaas runningfrom
(iv)
the peakof MountTosso inastraightlinetothe only pointon the Kentu-Bamenda road
where it is crossedby a tributaryof the Akbang river,as itis requiredto under the
terms of the 1946 Order in Council. This is depicted in Figure 7.38 of Nigeria's
Rejoinder.Cameroon,on the other hand,takes the boundaryfrom MountTosso to a
point onthe Kentu-Bamendaroadwherethere is notributarycrossing.
23 CR 2002/11pp. 34-36,aras83-91(Macdonald).(22) Mberogo
By way of general comment, this area has been described under (13) above. It is
(i)
covered by the terms ofthe Second Scheduleof the 1946 Orderin Council. It is an
inhabited area, but the erroneous understanding of the boundary by local
Cameroonianofficialshas resultedin a disputearising betweenthe two States. This
has raisedissues of intemational responsibility betweenNigeria and~ameroon*~.
(ii) Before Independence the boundary in this area was an administrative division
betweenthe BritishadministeredNorthernand Southern Cameroons.The area was
not an intemationalboundary,and Nigeriacanfind no referenceto any visits by the
district officers tothearea.
After Independencethe boundary in this area continued to be maintained by local
(iii)
government officers. It is remote and some distance from the local government
headquarters.It cannotbe reachedby car,and so visitsto the areahaveto be made
on foot or by motorcycle.
(iv) The courseof the boundaryinthisarea hasalways beentreatedas runningaccording
to the descriptiongiven in paragraphs 7.112-7.116and depicted in Figure 7.39 of
Nigeria's Rejoinder. Cameroonhas a differentunderstandingof the position of the
boundary.In any event,local Cameroonianofficialsdo not observeeven Cameroon's
own interpretationofthe boundaryin this area,and raidthe Nigerianvillagesof Tosso
and Mberogo,extortingmoneyand arrestingand detaining Nigerianinhabitants.This
raises
serious issuesof intemationalresponsibilityonthe partof Cameroon.Cameroontries
to argue that there are other Cameroonianvillages in the area called Tosso and
24
See Nigeria'sCounter-Memoria, aragraphs25.58-25.63,and RejoinderCC23, pages744-746.Mberogo,butprovides noevidence for these,andindeedtheallegedsituatioof"their"
Tosso,onthehighestpointofMount Tossoi,sridiculous T.heirargumentsinrespectof
thisareaarerefutedindetailinparagraphs 7.197-7.204of Nigeria'Rejoinderand at
CR200210 pp.57-59,paras.67-79(Watts).QUESTIONSOFJUDGE KOOIJMANS
*'Ihavethe following three interrelatedquestions for fhe RespondentState:
1. Can theRespondentindicate how offen and on whaf kind of occasionsthe Kings and
Chiefs of Old Calabaras a separate entity had fomal contacts with the Protecting
Power after the conclusionof the 1884 Treatyon Protection?
2. Were the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabsr consulted when the Protecting Power in
1885 incorporated their temyoryin the British Protectorate of the Niger Districts (see
Counter-Memorial of Nigeria, para. 6.66) which in turn had become part of the
Protectorate of Soufhem Nigeria when the 1913 Anglo-Geman Treaty was
concluded? If the answer is no, why were they not consulted? If the answer is yes,
what wastheir reactionand is their reacfioncontainedin a fomal document?
3. Did that incorporation bring to an end the purported international personality of the
Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar as a separate entdy? If nof, when did it cease to
exist?"
RESPONSE
1. In the second round of the oral hearings, on 14 March, Nigeria gavea preliminary
responseto the questions put toNigeria byJudge Kooijmans.
Background
2. Judge Kooijmans' first two questions concerned the extent of any consultation with
the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar in the years following the conclusion of the
Treaty of Protection of1884. In seeking to provide an answer to those questions,
two background pointsneed to be made, concerning
(i> the arrangementsfor makingand preservingrecords,and
(ii) the legalnature ofthe Kings andChiefs ofOld Calabar.(i) The making and prese~ation of records
3. First,dealingswith the Kings and Chiefsof Old Calabarwill almostexclusivelyhave
taken place locally, in what for convenience will be referred to as Nigeria (even
though that is not strictly accurate for the early part of that period). Any records
relating,for example (totake Judge Kooijmans'first question),to occasions whenthe
Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar as a separate entity had formal contactswith the
Protecting State after the conclusion of the Treaty of Protection,will have originally
beenprepared,producedand held locally.
4. Thus they will at first have been in Old Calabar (which in due course becamethe
*
modem town of Calabar),or then in Lagos-for although Lagosand its immediate
surrounding area was itself a colony and was thus always constitutionallydistinct
fromthe Protectorate,it was, after about 1906,the centre of Britishadministrationfor
the whole of Nigeria. British practice regarding its administration of its overseas
territorieswasgenerally notto transfercompletesetsof local records backto London
- either at the time or later, for example upon Independence. If something was
sufficiently importantfor thelocal Govemorformally to send a reportbackto London,
then it will probably have survived in the Foreign Office or ColonialOffice archives
which are now in the Public Record.Officeat Kew. But even the archives of
-
GovernmentMinistriesin London were notall transferredeventuallyto Kew: they all
went through a process of "weeding", and many have been lost in that way-
especially when it is bome in mind that those doingthe weeding were not lawyers
thinking about what might later be relevant to some as yet unknown legal
proceedings, but archivists and administrators whose main concern was with the
historical significanceor otherwise of the papers being kept or, as the case may be,
destroyed.5. However, even if destroyed, the original existence of the documents will nearly
always be evident from the entries in the Indexes of archives: but while the Indexes
will, by thetitle given to the document,reveal what a destroyed documentwas about,
they will not indicate in any greater detail than that what its content was. In
particular, a document indexedas dealingwith one subject might well have included
material relevantto another line of enquiry,and the former existence of that material
will no longerbe apparent just from the document's indexedtitle.
6. Most British records of meetings betweenBritish officialsand the local people in the
Calabar regionwould in anyevent have merited no morethan preservationin Calabar
or Lagos. Theywould, in the normal case, be kept for only a limited time -perhaps
several years, but certainly not for several decades. As for records which may have
been made by the Kings and Chiefs themselves,they are unlikely to have been as
bureaucratically-mindedas the British officials were,and such written recordsas they
may have madeof their dealings with theBritish are perhaps even more unlikely to
have beenkeptbythem forverylong,ifat all.
(ii) The KingsandChiefs of OldCalabar
7. The second background point is that the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar were not,
as Nigeriapointed out in its Counter-Memorial,a simpleunitary entity. They were, as
there described, something like what today we might classify as a loose federation.
There were a number of Kings and Chiefs, having in common that .they had their
territorial base in and aroundthe area of Old Calabar, and acting more and more, in
an evolutionary process which is quite common, under the paramountcy of one of
their number.8. Nigeria has now undertaken further research, and has in particular had the
opportunity of discussing these matters with the current Obong of Calabar, His
Majesty Edidem (Professor) Nta Elijah Henshaw VI. In the light of the further
information nowavailable, particularly thatrecently providedby His Majesty,Nigeria
can amplify the information previouslygiven to the Court to the extent necessaryto
provide afull answer toJudge Kooijmans'questions.
9. Historically, in the area around Old Calabar thera numberof localities, each
with its own distinctterritorial base. Each of these had its own King or Chief. The
Kings were called, in the Efik language, Obongs or Edidems, the former being a
degreeof kingshipwhich involvedan element of beingGod'srepresentative onearth, W
while the latter was also a degree of kingship but without that additional element
which entitled the King to be treated as having "Majesty" and thus to be address as
"His Majesty"or'Your Majesty".
10. The several Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar traced their origins back for some
centuries. There isa record of0 of the Kings of Old Calabar having commercial
relationswithBritishtraders JohnBarbot,James Barbotand Snelgravein 1698~'.
11. By the last half of the nineteenthcentury there were a number of Kings and Chiefs.
They had in common that their territorial bases were in the region around Old -
Calabar. The various Kings and Chiefs had jurisdiction and power over their
particular territo-isignificant towns in the casethe more important among
them.
25
JohnBarbotA Description otfhe CoastsofNorthand SouthGuinea,byPEH5Hair,ted
HakluytSociety,19volII, p.705.12. The Kings and Chiefs selected a paramount King from among their number:he was
the most senior amongthem, andwas known as the King of Old Calabar, and later
King of Calabar. Where it was appropriatefor them to act together as a single unit,
whether for domestic purposes or todeal from a position of unity and strengthwith
outside Powers, they came together for that purpose, under the leadership of
whichever among theirnumber wasthe paramount Kingfor the time being.
13. However, on matters where it was appropriate for them to act on their own in their
dealings with other communities -whether other Kings and Chiefs, or other State-
they did so. Thus a number of the treaties cited in Nigeria's Counter-Memorialwere
concluded with only one of the Kingsand Chiefs, as most relevant for the particular
subject-matter of the Treaty. But it is to be noted that a Treaty concludedwith the
Kingof OldCalabar wasnormally aTreaty concludedfor the whole Kingdom.
14. Itwas on this basis thatwhen, in 1884, the Kings and Chiefs neededto constitute a
single unit in order to bethe one partyto a Treaty of Protectionto which GreatBritain
was the otherparty, theyacted together. AsNigeriashowed in its Counter-Memorial
and during the first roundof the oralhearings2=,in concluding that Treaty stepswere
also taken expressly to bring withinits ambitnumber of local Kingsand Chiefswho
were subjectto the jurisdiction andauthority of the Kingsand Chiefsof Old Calabar.
15. The arrangements for the choice of King of Old Calabar were informal, and were
based essentially on age, the oldestbeing regardedas the most senior. This did not
always produce a smooth succession, and in particular in 1879, following the death
of King Archibong 111t,ere was foratime some confusion before his successor,King
Duke Ephraim Eyamba IX,was chosen. He reigneduntil 1890, butthere wasthen
26
CR 2002/8p.45para30Watts);alsoNCM, para6.33,p.93-94. more confusion, and in fact a gap of several years during which there was no
paramountKing(although,of course,all the local Kingsand Chiefs continuedto play
their several roles as the traditionalrulers). The Kingsand Chiefs decided to make
different arrangementsforthe choiceof their paramountKing, and in 1902 formalised
newarrangementswherebythe Kingsand Chiefs electedtheir paramountKingfrom
among their number to be the Obong of Calabar; the remaining Kingsand Chiefs
werethenceforth styled Etuboms.Whilst retainingtheirtraditionalauthority,theyalso
becamemembersof theObong'sCourt.This isthe systemwhich governs thechoice
of Obongs tothis day. Ithas not beenwithout its difficulties,and attimes therehave
been considerable periods when the manoeuvringswere prolonged and intricate,
leadingto there being no Obong for a number of years. As before, however, the
Kingsand Chiefs -the Etuboms-stillcontinuedto functionas the traditionalrulersof
their separatetenitories, and were still capableof actingtogether, even thoughthey
wouldthen haveto makead hoc arrangementsfor doingso.
16. Thusthe Obongsof Calabartrace their ruling authority inthe officeof Obong (as at
presentorganised) backto the establishmentof the new arrangementsintroducedat
the beginning of the twentiethcentury,but their authority as Kingor Chief of oneof
the localterritorialunitsgoesbackseveral centuries.
-
17. These arrangements were known to, arld endorsed by, the British authorities.
Evidencefromthe PublicRecordOfficein Kew,London,shows thatduringthe British
Protectorate, traditional organs of public order and administration continued to
27 SeeFO 881152p.190andFO88116471pp245-247.18. During the period of British Protectorate until 1960, it was usual for the Obong of
Calabar to use the title Edidem, still (as explained above) meaning King but without
the overtones of "Majesty" whichwas implicit inthe title of Obong. Thiswas so as to
avoidthe simultaneous existence of both a Britannic "Majesty" in Great Britain, and
the Obong's "Majesty" in Nigeria. After independence in 1960 this reasoning no
longerapplied, andthe Obongthen,and now, became onceagain properly knownas
"His Majesty the Obong of Calabar".
19. In summary, the Kings and Chiefs acted as a unit, or as their separate constituent
territories,as circumstancesdictated. As canbeseen, there are considerableelements
in theirmutual relationshipwhich resemblethe structureof a modem federation. Asa
federation it was bothloose andinformal,but itwas nevertheless real - they constituted
a communitywhichwas even moreintegrated,cohesiveand permanentthan simply,to
use the words of the Court in the Western SaharaAdvisory Opinion2*,a community
"sociallyand politicallyorganised in tribes and under chiefs competent to represent
them". It has been acknowledgedthat the conclusion by local rulers of treaties of
protection,like that of 1884, "constitutesa recognitionof personalityboth of the ruler
andofthe people
28 ICJReports1975,at p.39, para80.
29 Shaw,Tie to TerritorAfricaInternationalLwaIssue(s986),p. 37:quotedaNCM, para6.20p,88.Question I
20. The first question asked "how often and on what kind of occasions the Kings and
Chiefs of Old Calabar as a separate entity had formal contacts withthe Protecting
Powerafter the conclusionof the1884Treaty of Protection".
21. Sofar as Nigeriahas beenableto discover, recordswhich would enablethe question
to be answered comprehensivelyno longer exist, either in London, or in Calabar or
Lagos,or in the NationalArchives inEnugu or Ibadan. However,somerecordshave
been traced, showing several occasionsin the years after 1884 when there were
formalcontactsbetweenthe Kings andChiefs andthe Britishauthorities.
w
22. In January 1885 the British Consul, Hewitt, gave a decision in a local dispute
involving certain of the local chiefsoin Old Calabar, apparently involving the
possessionof propertyandan outbreakof hostilitiesarising inthat conne~tion.~' he
Consul's decisioninvolvedthe impositionof certain penaltiesand a requirementthat
certain specified proceduresshould befollowed. He then stated: "The enforcement
of mydecision according to the treatywith Englandlast concluded,is to be made by
the Kingsand chiefs, butI hopetherewill be no occasionto call on themto do this."
This shows both the application of the terms of the Treaty of Protection, and the
continuing roleof the Kingsand Chiefsafter the conclusionofthe 1884Treaty.
23. There is a record in the Public Record Office at Kew of some corespondence in
1887 in which a Mr G Turner, writing apparently on behalf of a number of people
(including. Prince Eyamba, and Thomas Yellow Duke), set out a number of
complaints about the rnisbehaviourand internal squabblingof a numberof the local
chiefs. He enclosed with his letter a copy of a paper made by the British Consul,
30
PubliRecordOffice:FO 8411740,ff. 123-124. Mr Hewitt, "for the better government of their country submitted to the Kings and
Chiefsof OldCalabar". That paperconsistedof "suggestionsand recommendations"
madeby Mr Hewitt "to the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabarat a meetingheld at the
British Consulate, Old Calabar, on the 14th February, 1887.~' Even though
MrTurner statedthat theKingsandChiefsdidnot acceptthe paper,the paper shows
clearly that in 1887 the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar were regarded as the
appropriate channelfor communicationsof the kind in question between them and
the Britishauthorities;thepaper alsoshows thatthe meetingon 14Februarywas not
an isolatedmeeting, sincethe paperrecords that that meeting was adjourned until
15 March.
24. Also availablein the PublicRecordOffice is a long report,dated 1 September1891,
from Major MacDonald,the BritishConsul-General,to Lord Salisbury,the Secretary
of Statefor Foreign~ffairs.~* The report recorded a visitwhich the Consul-General
paid to a number of areaswithin his district, in order to explain some new British
proposalsfor the impositionof customsdutiesand to obtain the consentof the local
rulers. So far as relevant in the present context it is to be noted that the Consul-
General had in advance arranged a "meeting of the Old Calabar Chiefs". He
"received KingDuke, andthe other, so-caliedKings, and Chiefs of Old Calabar, in
Durbar". Quite apart from the immediate business of the customs proposals, the
Kings and Chiefswished also "to speak to me on one or two subjects which they
hoped I would represent to Her Majesty's Government", and the Consul-General
acceptedthatthat was appropriate,although betterdone at a later date. At the end
of hisvisit the Consul-Generalsecureda Declarationsignedby KingDuke IX and26
othersgiving theirconsentto the impositionofthe customsduties inquestion (texton
31 FO 88115588,pp.200-202oftheprint
32 FO 88116351,pp.3943 oftheprint(Annex1). finalpage of Annex 1):the Declarationwas in thename of "the Undersigned, Kings,
Chiefs,and Headmenof the Old Calabar and district", and it was attested, and the
. .
translation certified, by documents referring to "the Old CalabarChiefs" and "the
.-
Kingsand Chiefsof the OldCalabar district". Thisreport shows that,with this kind of
officialbusiness, it was considerednormal by the British authoritiesto use the Kings
and Chiefs of Old Calabar as the proper channelfor official consultations,and that
the Kings and Chiefs bothcontinuedtoexist as a distinctive bodyandwere ready to
assumethe functionenvisagedforthem.
25. A further occasionwhich Nigeriawould recall inthis contextis the visitto Londonin
1913of certainof the Kingsand Chiefsof Old Calabar.j3 Inthat yearthe Kingsand
Chiefs made strong representations3"at what they saw as a British proposalto
amendthe systemof indigenouslandtenure applicablein south eastern Nigeria(an
areawhich, of course, includedBakassi).The Kingsand Chiefs sent arepresentative
delegationto London to pursue the question - no small matter at that time. They
gave evidence to the Parliamentary Committeewhich had been established to
examinethe landtenure question in a number ofAfrican States,anda questionwas
askedon their behalf in Parliament The delegationwas sent by Eyo HonestyVIII,
Obongof Calabar,togetherwith his Councilof Etuboms. Thedelegationconsistedof
some20 members:the two leading membersof the delegationwere Prince Bassey
DukeEphraim IX (a member of theNative Councilof Calabarand a son of the late
KingDuke) and Prince JamesEyo ItaVII, Chiefof CreekTown andgrandsonof King
Eyo.
33 CR200211 9, p.47,par64 (Watts);NGM, para9.3(5)-(6),pp.179-180.
34 Thisappearsevidentfromthe reporcarriedinTheAfn'canMailatp.433 ('in..SouthernNigeriathereis
widespreadexcitemenatnd unrestiniew ofthepropositioofthe Crown ttake overalllands").Seealso
E.E.OkuThe Kingsand ChiefsofOMCalabar(17851925) GladTidingsPress,1989,pp.234-237.A copy
was lodgedattheCourtwith theCounter-Memorial.26. As stated in Nigeria'sCounter-Memorial,there is no documentaryevidence available
to show that the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar knew of, or discussedin London,
the Anglu-German Treaty of March 1913. However, from what His Majesty the
Obong has recently toldNigeria, it is probable that when the delegationset out for
London they wereawareof rumoursabout a treaty whichwould giveawaytheir lands
(i.e. Bakassi) having recently been concluded with Germany in London (they left
Nigeria separatelybut assembledin Londonon 30 May 191 335 ,st overtwo months
afterthe conclusionof the Treaty on 11 March). Thiscould explainthe last partof
the question asked in Parliament on their behalf, which was (with the significant
passageunderlined)whether "..the Governmentproposesto transferthe ownership
of land in Southern Nigeria from the native communities to the Crown or to
dis~ossessthe natives of their land".j6 The Minister'srep-ythat "the Government
havenever made,and neverentertained,and would not entertain sucha proposal" -
would then have seemed a sufficient reassuranceto the delegation, duplicitous
thoughthe replymight nowbe shownto have been. Itwould have ledthe Kingsand
Chiefs not to pursue the matter further, and then about a year after their returnto
Nigeria in late July 1913, the outbreak of the First World War on 3 August 1914
wouldhave madefurther concernon theirpart apparently unnecessary.
27. Whether ornot the delegationpursued the matter of the 1913 Treatyin London in
additionto the land tenure question, the episode clearly showthat the Kings and
Chiefs continuedto exist as a separate entityand were the appropriate entityfor
pursuing matterof importancewiththe Britishauthorities.
35
36 TheWeekly News,19 July1913,p.7.
NGM, para9.3(5),p.179, andAnnexNCM 110.Question2
28. Judge Kooijmans'secondquestionwaswhetherthe Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar
were "consulted whenthe ProtectingPower in 1885incorporated their territoryin the
*
British Protectorate of the Niger Distri...which in turn had become part of the
Protectorate of Southern Nigeria when the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty was
concluded". If the answerwas "no",Judge Kooijmans wanted to knowwhythey were
not consulted;and if the answerwas "yes" he wantedto knowwhat their reaction was
andwhetheritwascontainedina formaldocument.
29. The text of the Proclamationof 5 June1885 is atAnnex 2. It is to be notedthat this
4.
Proclamation was made not only a year after the conclusion of the 1884 Treaty of
Protection, but just a month after the conclusionof the Anglo-GermanExchange of
Notes of 29 April-7 May 1885 establishing the Rio dei Rey as the limit of ttwo
States'spheres of interests3'
30. Again, the possible consultation between the Kings and Chiefs and Great Britain
about the Proclamation is a matter about which Nigeria has no definitive
documentary evidenceeither way. Sofar as Nigeriahas beenable to discover, the
records which would enable the question to be answered simply no longer exist,
either in London, or in Calabar or Lagos,or Abuja. It seemslikely that it will prove
impossible to say with any certainty,supported by documentary evidence, thathe
Kingsand Chiefswere not consulted,and why, or thatthey were consultedand their
answer was such and such.
37 NGM, paras7.57.7p,.130-132,andAnnexNCM24.31. His Majesty the Obong has howevertold Nigeriathat the Kings and Chiefs were
madefully aware of the Proclamation,and had no difficultieswith it. So far as they
were concerned it in no way diminished their lands. They were content that the
Protectionby Her Majesty's Governmentwould continueand would extend as far as
the Riodel Rey, thereby includingall the territoryundertheir sovereignty.There was
therefore no reason for the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar to comment
unfavourably. Indeed, they seem to have regarded it, at least potentially,as giving
them authority over some of the adjacent temtories which were subject to other
Protectoratetreaties withotherlocal rulers. Furthermore,a letterfrom MrLister of the
ForeignOffice to Acting ConsulWhite on 13 May 1885% requeststhat he
"will take stepst onceto notify to all the Chiefs to the east of the [recently
concluded Anglo-GermanTreaty] line [in the Rio del Rey] that the Treaties
concluded with them for the Protectorate of Great Britain have not been
accepted by Her Majesty's Government; ..You will, at the same time, take
steps to makeit generallyknownamongthe Chiefs to thewestof the line that
the Emperor of Germany would not accept offers on their part to place
themselvesunderthe protectionof the Germanflag."
32. It is thus clear that the Kingsand Chiefswere also informedabouttheAnglo-German
Agreementof 1885 which extendedthe British Protectorateupto the Riodel Rey.
33. To that it should be addedthat under Englishlawthere was no requirementthat the
rulers of the Protectoratetemtorieshad to be consulted before a Proclamationcould
be made unrfying in one Protectoratethe various British Protectoratesexisting in
Nigeria at the time. Consequently there was no need in English law for the
Proclamation to recitethat such consultationhad taken place, and accordingly, if it
had indeed taken place, it was not the kind of matterwhich would necessarilyhave
hadto beformally reportedbackto London.
38
FO 881/5161, 67of the print.Question 3
34. Judge Kooijmans'third questionwas whether the incorporationof the territory of the
Kingsand Chiefsof Old Calabarintothe BritishProtectorateof theNiger Districtsdid .
"bringto an end the purportedinternationalpersonalityof the Kingsand Chiefsof Old
Calabaras a separateentity",and"If not, whendid it cease to exist".
35. Nigeria'spreliminaryanswerto the main bodyof that question was "no". After further
research,Nigeriaconfirms thatpreliminaryanswer.
36. The unification of certain protectorate territories did not result in the instant
disappearance of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. While for British W
administrative purposes there may have been - indeed, presumably was -
conveniencein treating all the protectorateterritoriesas one, thisis not the same as
saying that the protected communities legally lost their distinct legal personalities.
Those distinct personalitiesremained,subjectto the rights and obligations setout in
their respective treatiesof protection.This is further evidenced bythe fact that up to
1893the Britishrepresentativescontinuedto maketreaties of Protectionwith various
Chiefswithinthe NigerCoast protectorate3'.
The continuationin lawof thosetreaties of protection,and thus ofthe original parties
w
to them and their successorsin title, was a notablefeature of the British legislation
right up to the time of Independence. As Nigeria has shown in its Counter-
~emoriap, British legislative action in relation to Nigeria always, right through to
Independencein 1960, distinguished carefullyand consistently between the colony
of Lagos, and the Protectorateof Nigeria. The Nigerian Protectoratewas dealt with
39
40 SeeHertslet'The MapofAfricabyTrea'3rded. 1967, p.24-154.
NGM, para6.58,~.107;para6.72, pp.117-118; paras6.79-6.80,pp.121-122. underthe terms of the Foreign Jurisdiction~cts~',which permittedOrders in Council
to be madewhere the British Crownhad acquired powerandjurisdiction in aforei~n
territory "byTreaty, Capitulation,Grant, Usage,Sufferance,and other lawfulmeans".
38. In relationto the Nigerian Protectoratethis enactmentwas applied in a successionof
Orders in Council:see for example,Article Ill of the Southern Nigeria Protectorate
Order in Council 1911~~.They included a definition of the term "treaty" for the
purposesofthe Orders.So far as presentlyrelevant,the term "treaty"was definedso
that it
"includesanytreaty, convention, agreemeno tr arrangement,made on behalfof
[theCrown]with ...any Nativetribe,people, chief,or
That definition clearlycovers the1884Treaty ofProtectionwith the Kings andChiefsof
Old Calabar. Moreovert,he Ordersin Counciltypically44includeda statement thatthe
rightssecured tothe protected community by any treaties or agreements could not be
derogatedfromby ordinances, andthat
"all such treatiesand agreementsshall be and remain operativeand in force,
and all pledges and undertakingstherein contained shall remain mutually
bindingon all partiestothesame".
39. This formula continuedto be used in the ProtectorateOrders in Council right up to
independencein 1960. It confirmsthat the legal existenceof the Treaty of Protection
1884,andthusof the partiesto it (i.e.includingthe Kingsand Chiefsof Old Calabar),
remained "operativeand in force" until, and only cameto an end with, the attainment
of Independencein 1960.
41 NCM, paras6.73-6.80,pp.118-122.
42 AnnexNGM, 44.
43 Thefulltext is inNigeria'sCwnter-Mem,ara8.46,p.165,andatAnnexesNCM 44 and53.
44 Nigeria'sCounter-Memoril,ara8.47, pp.165166, andAnnexesNC-M44, 53.40. It is not possibleto saywith clarity and certaintywhat happenedto the intemational
legal personality of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar after 1885. Certainly,the
Kings and Chiefs, organised in the manner described above at paragraphs 7-18,
continued to function as the traditional rulers of their territoriesaround Calabar,as
theydo to thisday.
41. In the case concerning Rinhts of Nationals of the United Statesin ~orocco~' the
Court held that the intemational personality of Morocco had continued
notwithstandingthe French Protectorate overMoroccoestablished by the Treaty of
Fez1912. The situationwith whichthe Court was dealingwas suchthat the Court's
m
finding appliedto the status of Moroccoin 1948. The Treaty of ~ez~~ gave France
moreextensivepowersand authority over and inrelationto Moroccothan the Treaty
of Protection18U4' gaveGreat Britainover andin respectof the Kingsand Chiefsof
OldCalabar.
In the Western Sahara case48,the Court's finding in relation to the intemational
personality of the nomadic tribes whose status was in question related to the year
1884. Those tribes had previously entered into various Protectorate treaties with
Spain. Examplesof thosetreaties are given in thepublished Pleadingsin that case.
Again, the Court's finding that the tribes had at least sufficient intemational
w
personality in 1884 to have title to their lands means that they continued to have
such personality at least that long after the conclusion of the various treaties of
protection.
46 ICJReports1952,.176.
ICJPleadings,RightsofNationalsof the UnitedStAmeric anMorocco(Francv.USA),Vol.I,
47 p.650.
ThetextiatNGM,Annex 23.
48 ICJReports1975 ,. 39.43. There seemsno reasonto doubtthat a similar conclusionis to bereachedin relation
to the Kingsand Chiefsof Old Calabar,indeed their position constitutesan a fortiori
case. Like much of the constitutionaland intemational development of the British
Empire inthe late nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, the
matter was one of gradual evolution. The emergence to full intemational
independence of Australia, Canada, India and New Zealand, for example, was in
each casea slow process, and it is difficultto pinpoint any one event by which that
process could be saidto have been completed: it was at the time a matterof much
debate.
44. So too with Old Calabar. Two processeswere at work. First, there was a gradual
emergenceof a singleNigerianentity.Thefirst time thatthe term "Nigeria"was used
in formal British legal instruments appears to have been in two Orders in Council
made in 189g4', probably as a conglomerate name invented for administrative
purposes.Fromthenon "Nigeria" graduallybecame thedominantconcept,and came
for manypurposes - but not necessarilyall-to constitutethe legalpersonwhich was
the subjectof the Protectorate.
45. The secondprocess which was at work, concurrently, was the emergence of the
Obongship of Calabar as the central element in the traditional rule of the region,
representing the collectiveauthorityof all the Kings and Chiefs of the Kingdom. As
explained above, the present Obongship was,and still is, the result of a formalised
arrangementfor identifying the principal among the Kings and Chiefs, of whom the
person selected to be Obong was one. The individual Kings and Chiefs, however,
continuedto exist, andindeed the patternof local rulerswas neverended.
49 Nigeria'Counter-Memorial,ara6.68(5),pp.113-114.46. Whether asthe entity "Kings andChiefs of Old Calabar"(collectivelyrepresentedby
the most senior amongthem), oras individualKings andChiefs, or as the Obongsof
Calabar (elected,and representingthe Kingsand Chiefsof the Kingdom collectively),
the authorityof those traditional localrulershas been continuous. It still continuesto
this day as asignificantelementinlocal governmentaladmini~tration.~'
47. At what stage within this process of evolution the Kings and Chiefs and their
successors in title can be said to have ceased to enjoy international personality
cannot be precisely determined. They would seem clearlyto have ceased to be an
international person in 1960, when Nigeria became the recognised independent
State in respect of their territories. But for some purposes their international 0
personality continuedat least untilthen. Certainly, as stated above, up to that date
the ProtectingState, the United Kingdom,regarded theirTreaty of Protectionof 1884
as still "operativeand inforce".
48. This Court,and its predecessor,inthe casesconcerning NationalitvDecreesIssued
in Tunis and MO~OCCO,~' Ri~lhtsof Nationalsof the UnitedStates in ~orocco,5~and
Western ~ahara,~~set certain standards and reached certain conclusions as to
international personality of certain emerging entities. By comparison with the
particular situationswith which the Courtwas dealing in those cases - the nomadic -.
w
tribal societyin Western Sahara,andthe protectorates inthe othertwo cases - there
seems no room for doubt that (i). the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar had
internationalpersonalityat the timeof the conclusionof the1884Treatyof Protection-
50
51 NGM, paras 6.85-6. 87.123-125.
52 PCIJSeriesB,No.4.
53 ICJReports1952,p. 176.
ICJReports1975,p.12.indeedtheir conclusionof that Treaty was a manifestationof that international
personality(,ii) theydid not loseit by virtueof that Treaty, and (iiit)hat personality
continuedto survivethe variouschangeswhichensuedin the followingyears,until
Independence in1960.QUESTION OF JUDGEELARABY
"Ihave one questionaddressedtothe Respondent:Thequestionas follows:
In fhe course of thelpleadings, referencewas made to the legal kgime established by
the League's Mandafeand the UnitedNations'Trusteeship.
Wouldit bepossible to elabomtefurther andprovide the Courtwith additional commentson
the relevanceof the boundariesthaf existedduring thatperiod?"
RESPONSE
1. It appears thatthis questionrelates to two matters:first, the territoriallimits adopted
m'
by the League of Nations and the United Nations for the Mandated and Trust
Territory of British Cameroons,and second, the relevance for the present case of
those limits in the light of the legal regime established by the Mandate and
Trusteeshipsystems.
TERRITORIALLIMITS
(A) Background
2. Following the outbreak of the FirstWorld War in 1914, British, Frenchand Belgian
troops occupiedthe Geman territoryof Kamerun:this occupationwas complined -
1916,and thereafter theadministrationof occupiedKamerunwas undertakthey
UnitedKingdomand France.
3. Franco-Britishnegotiationstook placebetween Picot (for France)and Strachey (for
the United Kingdom) regardingthe provisionaladministration of.~~During
their negotiationsit appearsthat the British andFrenchnegotiatorshadbeforethem
54 SeeNC-M,par18.30,p.488. a map produced by Picot on which he had drawn a line indicating a division of
territory southofla (a locationsomewhat overhalfway alongthe Nigeria-Kamenm
boundarybetween thesea and LakeChad). During discussionStracheydrew on it a
rough linein blue pencil amendingPicot's originalline.The two Governments,by an
Exchangeof Notes of 3-4 March 1916, acceptedthe lines drawn on the map signed
bythe twonegotiators.However,the originalof the mapon which thislinewas drawn
has not beenfound, and its nature can only be inferred from various papers which
are still available. Sincein any event the actual courseof the lineis not known, and,
whereverit ran, it was supersededin 1919by a furtherAnglo-Frenchagreement,the
Picot-Strachey line had little practical relevance for the boundary alignment after
1919.
4. Wm the end oftheWar in 1918,Germanyrelinquishedits title to the formerGerman
territory of the Kamerunby Articles 118 and 119 of the Treaty of Versailles 1919.~~
ThoseArticlesread asfollows:
PART IV
GERMANRIGHTS ANDINTERESTSOUTSIDEGERMANY
Article 118
In territory outside her Europeanfrontiers as fixed by the present Treaty, Germany
renounces allights,titlesand privilegeswhateverin or overterritory whichbelongedto
her or to her allies, andall rights,titles and privileges whatevertheir origin which she
heldas againstthe AlliedandAssociatedPowers.
Germanyhereby undertakesto recognizeandto conformto the measureswhich may
be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, in
agreementwhere necessarywith third Powers,in orderto carrythe above stipulation
intoeffect.
55
NCM, Vol.VAnnex NCM 49,p.476. In particular Germany declares heracceptance of the following Articlesrelating to
certainspecialsubjects.
SECTIONI
GERMANCOLONIES
Article 119
Germany renouncesin favour ofthe PrincipalAllied and Associated Powersall her
rightsand ties overheroverseapossessions.
5. These Articles did not identify the German possession of Kamerunas one of thw
German oversea possessionscovered by these Articles, but it is common ground
betweenthe Parties that that was so. Since Kamerunwas not in terms identified in
theseArticles of the Treatyof Versailles, therewas no referencein that Treatyto its
boundaries.
6. In practice it was for the PrincipalAllied and Associated Powersto agree among
themselves what was to be done with German oversea possessions. Inthe
meantime they provisionally administered those possessions. As part of the
provisionalarrangements, theformer GerKameruncontinuedto be administered
-
underthe authorityof the Britishand FrenchGovemments.
7. On 10 July 1919 the United Kingdom and France signed a "Franco-British
~edaration".Inthistheyrecordedthat they had
"agreedto determinethe frontier, separating theterritoriesof the Cameroons
placedrespectivelyunder tauthor@of their Governments,as it is traced on
the map Moisel 1:300,000,annexedto the presentdeclaration anddefined in
the descriptioninthreearticlesalso annexedhereto."
56
NGM,paras18.31-18.pa3s488.490;AnnexNGM 50.8. The annexto the Declarationwas entitled"Descriptionof the Franco-BritishFrontier,
marked on the Moisel'sMap of the Cameroons, scale 1:300,000".It describedthe
boundary in Article 1, made provisionfor demarcation in Article 2, and attacheda
map of the Cameroons,scale 1:2,000,000,"to illustratethe description of the above
frontier". This document is generally referred to as the Milner-Simon Declaration,
those being the namesof the Britishand FrenchMinisterswho signedit.
9. The Milner-SimonDeclaration describedthe boundaryfromLake Chad(at the mouthof
the Ebedji)to the Atlantic (to seawardof the junction of the Matumal and Victoria
Creeks,in effectat the mouth of the CameroonRiver).This boundarythus formedthe
eastern boundaryof the British areaof the Cameroons,and the western boundaryof
the French area oftheCameroons.It is illustratedon thesketchmapatAnnex 3.
(6) The Mandate
10. Under the Treaty of Versailles the Principal Allied and Associated Powers had
acquired all Germany'srights over, inter alia, the Cameroons.As recorded in the
Preamble to the Mandate eventuallyconferred upon Great ~ritain,~~ those Powers
agreed that the British and French Govemments should make a joint
recommendationto the League of Nations as to the future of the Cameroons.The
two Governments made a joint recommendationto the Council of the League of
Nations that mandatesshould be conferred upon them covering (for Great Britain)
"that part of the Cameroonslyingto the west of the lineagreed upon in the [Milner-
Simon] Declaration",and (for ~rance58")that part of the Cameroonslying to the east
of the line agreeduponinthe [Milner-Simon]Declaration"
57 AnnexNGM 51.
58 See MandateforFrench Cameroonp,reamble: AnxCM 52.I I. Accordingly,Article1 of the Mandateforthe BritishCameroonsdescribedthe territorial
scopeof the Mandateinthefollowingterms:
'The territory forwhich a Mandate is conferred upon His Britannic Majesty
comprisesthat partof the Cameroonswhichliestothewestofthe linelaiddown
inthe Declarationsigned on the 10th July 1919, of which a copy is annexed
hereto."
The Declarationreferredto was the Milner-Simon Declaration.he Article went on to
allow that lineto be "slightly modified" in certain circumstances, and providedalso
that "The delimitationon the spot of this line beacanied out in accordancewith
the provisions of the said Declaratio-a reference to the arrangements setout in
Article3 of theMilner-SimonDeclaration.
12. Article 1 of the Mandate for the FrenchCameroons described thetenitorial limitsof
the Mandate in equivalent terms, although of course referring to that part of the
Cameroons lyingto the east of the Milner-Simonline.
It is to notedthat Article? of the British Mandate only set out, by its referenceto
the Milner-Simon Declaration,the eastern boundary of the British Cameroons.The
northern, southern and western boundaries were left as covered simply by the
reference to "that part of the Cameroons": i.e. if a territory was part of the
Cameroons, and if it lay to the west of the line set out in the Milner-Simon w
Declaration, then it was covered by the Mandate and was part of the British
Cameroons.
14. Consequently,thismeantthatinternationally
- theeasternboundaryof the British Cameroonswasthat describedinthe Milner-
Simon Declaration, - the northernboundarywas the boundaryof the former Kamerunfacing Lake
Chad,
- the southern boundarywas the coastline (togetherwith itsterritorialsea)of the
formerKamerunfacingthe Gulf ofGuinea,and
-
the westernboundarywas the boundary between the Nigeria Protectorate and
the former Kamerun,as describedalmost entirely in various Anglo-German
treaties.
These boundariesareillustratedinthesketch mapatAnnex 3.
15. It is to be noted that this descriptionof the boundary doesnot result in a completely
certainterritorial boundaryfor the BritishCameroons.Thus,for example, if any ofthe
relevant instruments contained a defective delimitation, or a delimitation which is
ambiguous or otherwise unclear,thenthe boundarywill itself bedefectiveor unclear.
Again, if any of the relevant instrumentsis in someway withoutlegal effect, then the
boundarywill to that extent not be determined bythat instrument.
16. In short, the language of the territorial definition in Article 1 of the Mandatefor the
British Cameroons (andits mirror image in the Mandatefor the French Cameroons)
begs the questionwhether any particularpieceof temtory was or was not "partof the
Cameroons". This question is of particularrelevance to the position of the Bakassi
peninsula, for the reasonsfully set out in Nigeria'swritten pleadingsand in Nigeria's
oral argument, and bearing in mind the general limits on the powers of the
AdministeringAuthority (asto which seebelow).
17. No formal change was made to the terms of Article 1 of the Mandatefor either the
British or FrenchCameroonsduringthe continuanceof the Mandate.18. However, during the 1920s various relatively minor practical problems arose
regardingthe applicationof the Milner-Simon Declaration.Variousjoint Anglo-French
teams inspectedthe boundary areasandmade reports.The Governor of Nigeria (Sir
Graeme Thornson)and the Governorof the French Cameroons (M. Paul Marchand)
put inhand arrangementsfor further specifying the boundary between the Britishand
French Cameroons. The result of their work was a "Declaration ..defining the
Boundary betweenBritish and French~ameroons",~ signed by them, but not dated
(althoughitwould appearto havebeensignedin 1929).
19. This Declaration is referred to as the Thomson-Marchand Declaration.It describes
the whole Anglo-Frenchboundary,from Lake Chadto the seaat, in effect,the mouth ~lr
of the Cameroon River, by reference to successive lines described in 188 short
paragraphs.The Declarationwas approvedby the two Govemmentsin an Exchange
of Notesof 9 January193lS0.
In doing so, the Govemments noted that (as set out in paragraph 2 of the British
Note) "this declarationis ..notthe product ofa boundary commissionconstitutedfor
the purposes of carryingout the provisions ofArticle 1 of the Mandate, but only the
result of a preliminary surveyconductedin orderto determinemore exactly thanwas
done in the Milner-Simon Declarationof 1919the line ultimatelyto be followedby the
'J
boundary commission". Despite its stated "preliminary" character, the two
Govemmentsagreedthat "the Declarationdoesin substance definethe frontier", and
they agreed that the "actual delimitation"could now be entrusted to the boundary
commission envisagedin Article 1 of the Mandate. In fact, only a limited stretch of
boundarywas demarcated between December1937 and May 1939, and that stretch
59
60 AnnexNGM 54, atp.4.
AnnexNCM 54. is now wholly within Cameroon and thus not relevant to the present boundary
betweenNigeria andCameroon.
21. Perhaps because of its "preliminary" character, while the fact of the Thomson-
MarchandDeclarationwas notifiedto the Leagueof Nations (Annex4), its provisions
do not appearto have been communicatedby the twoGovemments to the League.
Thus duringthe periodof the Mandatethe Thomson-MarchandDeclarationdoes not
seem to have formally formed part of the boundary arrangements with which the
Leaguewas concerned.
22. The Leaguewas, however,keenlyinterested in developments affecting theterritorial
extent of the Mandates for British and French Cameroons, as for all Mandated
temtories. TheMandatory Governments didnot havesovereignty overthe mandated
temtories, and therefore did not have any unilateral right to dispose of any temtory
subject to the Mandate, or to acquire additional territory for the Mandate. Any
territorial changes needed the approval of the League of Nations. It was thus
necessary for a Mandatory Government to report any changes or prospective
changesto the League, not necessarilywith total specificity butat leastwithsufficient
clarity to enable the League to control what was happening and, if necessary, to
makefurther enquiries.An exampleis the British Government's 1934 Reportto the
League on the British Cameroons, which reported a frontier adjustment, almost
certainlyinthe regionofsapeo6'.
23. In 1946,afterthe SecondWorldWarhad endedandin preparationfor theforthcoming
arrangements for United Nations Trusteeship, the United Kingdom made new
arrangementsfor the administrationandgovernmentofthe BritishCameroons.These
61
AnnexNGM 265;see alsCR 200210,p.55para57 (Watts) involveddividing the mandatedarea into a northernpart and a southern part The
dividingline between the northernand southernpartsof the Britishmandated area of
Cameroonswas set out in the SecondSchedule to the Nigeria (Protectorate and
Cameroons)Order in Council194.6~T.hisadministrativechangewas solelyconcerned
withthe internaladministrativeline of division,and didnotat thetimeaffecttheexternal
boundaries ofthe mandated area,in particular boundarywith FrenchCameroons,
whichcontinuedas before.
(C) TrusteeshipAgreement
24. The Mandates systemcameto an end afterthe endof the SecondWorld War, and
was replaced by the Trusteeship system under the United Nations Charter. The -
Trusteeship Agreement for the British Cameroons was approved by the General
Assembly on13 December 1946, and came into forceon the same day.63It defined
the temtoryto which it appliedin terms equivalenttothose adoptedin Article 1of the
Mandate.Article 1 of the TrusteeshipAgreementwasin the followingterms:
''TheTenitory to which this Agreement applies comprises that part of the
Cameroons lying to the west of the boundarydefined by the Franco-British
Declarationof 10July1919, and moreexactlydefined inthe Declarationmade
bythe Governorof the ColonyandProtectorateof Nigeriaand the Governorof
the CameroonsunderFrenchmandatewhichwas confirmedby the Exchange
of Notes between His Majesty'sGovernmentin the United Kingdomand the
French Government of9 January 1931. This line may, however, be slightly 9
modifiedby mutualagreementbetweenHisMajesty's Governmenitnthe United
Kingdomand the Govemmentof the FrenchRepublicwherean examinationof
the localitiesshows thatit is desirablein the interestsof theinhabitants."
25. It should be noted that, since the eastern boundaryof the British Trust Territory
shouldbe identicalwith the westernboundaryof the FrenchTrustTenitory, there is a
discrepancy between Article 1 of each of the Trusteeship Agreements in that,
62 AnnexNGM 55.
63 AnnexNC-M 56. somewhat curiously, the French Agreement doesnot contain any reference to the
Thomson-Marchand ~eclaration.~~Strictly speaking, therefore, the boundary
inherited by Cameroon on independencewas that described in the Milner-Simon
Declarationonly, and not the boundaryas set out in greater detail in the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration. Nigeriadoes not, however, seek to attach any substantive
significance to this technical discrepancy: Nineria clearly inherited a boundary
determinedby the Thomson-Marchand Declaration,and Nigeria is willing to accept
its provisionsas delimitingthe boundary (subject,of course,to the specific locations
which Nigeriahasdrawn to the Court'sattention).
26. No formal agreement makingany "slight modification"of the kind referred to in the
final sentence of Article 1 of the TrusteeshipAgreement was ever concluded: the
tenitorial limits of the Trust Territory therefore formally remained throughout the
Trusteeshipperiodas prescribedinArticle 1.
27. Thoseterritoriallimitsfollowed,in effect,the pattern ofthe limitsprescribedby Article
1 of theMandate,with the addition,for the BritishCameroons,of the referencetothe
'more exact definition' in the Thornson-Marchand Declaration. Accordingly, the
observationsmadeabove in relationto the Mandatecontinuedto be relevant - Article
1, by its reference to the Milner-Simon Declaration and the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration, only defined the eastern boundary of the British Cameroons. The
northern, southem and western boundaries were left as covered simply by the
referenceto the phrase"thatpart of the Cameroons":i.e. onlyif a territorywas partof
the Cameroons,and if it layto the west of the line set out in the Milner-Simonand
Thomson-Marchand Declarations, was it covered by the Trusteeship Agreement.
Thus, internationally,the northern boundary continued to be the boundary of the
64
See NGM paras19.6819.70, pages542-543. former Kamerunfacing Lake Chad,the southern boundarycontinuedto bethe coast
line (togetherwith its territorial sea) of theformer Kamerunfacingthe Gulfof Guinea,
.-
and the western boundarywas the boundary betweenthe Nigeria Protectorateand
:
the former Kamerun,as describedalmostentirely invariousAnglo-Germantreaties.
28. In short, the language of the territorial definitionin Article 1 of the Trusteeship
Agreement continued to beg the question whether any particular piece of tenitory
was or was not "part of the Cameroons".
29. As explained in relation to Article 1 of the Mandate,this question is of particular
relevanceto the positionof the Bakassipeninsula,bearing in mind also not only the
111
generallimits onthe powers ofthe AdministeringAuthority(asto which see below) but
also inparticularitsobligations underArticle8 of theTrusteeship Agreement.THE RELEVANCEOF THEMANDATEAND TRUSTEESHIPBOUNDARIES
30. It is generally acceptedthat Mandatory States andAdministeringAuthorities under
Trusteeships Agreements (togetherhere referredto as'AdministeringStates')did not
have sovereignty over the mandated or trust territories undertheir administration.
The Court held, in the case concerningtheInternationalStatus of South WestAfrica,
that confermentof a mandateupon a mandatory Statedid not involveany cession or
transfer ofterritory to it, but that,rather, thetenitory hadits owninternationalstatus6'.
The notion that the mandatory State could in some way be regarded as having
annexed the mandatedterritory was clearly rejected in the Namibia (SouthWest
Africa) LegalConseauences
They had specific rights and powers underthe terms of the Mandateor Trusteeship
Agreement in question,and in relation to any specific matter thefirst requirement is
to look at the terms of those instruments. Although those terms differed from
instrument to instrument, the one consistent provisionin all of them was that the
Administering States werelegallyaccountablefor theirdischargeandfulfilment of the
mandate and trusteeshipagreement. Theyexercisedtheir rightsand powerssubject
to the authonty of the intemational community's supervisory bodies- the Council of
the League of Nations,advised by the Permanent Mandates Commission,and the
TrusteeshipCouncil of the UnitedNations.Those bodiesexercisedtheir supervisory
roles primarilyon the basis of annual reportssubmittedby the AdministeringStates.
32. The specific point which Nigeriamade in the oral proceedings,and to which Judge
Elaraby was presumably refening, was that, as noted above, the Administering
States didnot have sovereigntyover the territoriestheywere administering.This
65 ICJ Rep. 1950at p.132.
66 ICJRep. 1971at pp. 28,30,43. carries with it the consequencethat, in particular, they did not have the power
unilaterallyto alter theirboundarieseither soasto increasethe limitsof the territories
-r so asto diminish them6'.Any suchvariationin the territorial limits ofthe mandated
or trust territory required the approval of the relevant supervisory organs of the
League of Nations and United ~ations~~ - that is, in the former case, the Council of
the Leagueacting onthe adviceofthe PermanentMandatesCommission,andin the
latter case,the TrusteeshipCouncilof the UnitedNations.
33. There is no record -and certainlyCameroon has not produced any -of any such
approval having beengiven in relation to the Bakassi peninsula.It follows that the
boundaries of the Mandated and later Trust temtory of British Cameroons were rc
during the Mandate and Trusteeship periods,and at their end, precisely what they
were at thebeginning, i.e. in 1922, since at no time subsequently did the British
Government have any right or power unilaterally to alter those boundaries.
Accordingly,the Bakassipeninsulahad the sameterritorial statusin 1960 as ithad in
1922.
34. Moreover, as the continuing Protecting State in respect of Nigeria, Great Britain
remained bound by the Treaty of Protection of 1884, and so continued not to have
any right or power to alienate Bakassi so as to transfer it to the Mandateor Trust
w
territory ofthe BritishCameroons.
35. For the samereasoning,Great Britain hadno poweras the transitional administering
authority from 1918 to 1922, or as the belligerent occupyingpower during the First
World War,to make any unilateral changes in the boundary of Kamerun, nor could
Great Britainas the continuing ProtectingState have lawfully transferred Bakassito
67
CounselforCameroonstated:'It wasaxiomaticinthisstructurethatthe admipowerdidnot
68 havethe powerunilateratodisposeofsuchterritory"(20034, p.19,ara4 (Marnark)).
Cameroonagrees:CR 20034,p.19,para6-7 (Ntamarck). Kamerunduring that transitionalperiod.There is no evidence that GreatBritain ever
purportedto make any such change or transfer during thatperiod. Accordingly the
tenitorial status of Bakassiwasthe same in 1922,at the beginningof the Mandate,
as it hadbeen in 1914.
36. The onlypossiblechangein itsterritorialstatusbeforethen wouldhavebeenthat which
resultedfromtheAnglo-German Treatyof I1 March1913 hadthattreatybeeneffective
to changethe Nigeria-Kamerun boundaryto the Akwayafe(now,Akpa Yafe). For the
reasonswhich Nigeriahassetout at length,the relevantprovisions(ArticlesXVIII-XXII)
were notlegallyeffectiveto achievethat result, giventheir violationof the fundamental
and universally accepted ru,emo datquod nonhabet.i:
. . $9
i::
3. No. 61. .
,JInjor lMacDona.2td o theMarquis ofSalisbury.-(Reckved October 51)
...,(No. 2.).
:;; .My Lord, Bonny,Septembe~1, 1891.
.I HAVE .the honour ,toreport that on the 27th August I returned from a tour
visitsround the varionsrivers in the Prot+c.torate.
The tour commencedon the 30th July, and was undertaken so that Icould install-- '.
- .
i: ~~~tabl~~~~~~n~--fheeey.a~~ in.utsesrVsevera~lCdi~ticts, and for the ':: .
y:. purpose of3~&&i.:f'~p@t.?,-.:'LAJ:!.>..-...* most of Fvhomare already knok%m to me,-):
r. .explainingto them the Tariff of customs .duties,and obtaining their consent for the ;.
impositionof the same. +
-!My first meetingmas held at Bonn2 on.the 30th July. Tliere were present at the
, meeting all the more important Chiefs 'of Bonny,as well as King Amachree, and 'the
j *Chiefs of New Calabar.
$ I I explained fully to them thereasons for the new order of Administration which I
i .wasabout to inaugurate,. remindedthem of mypreviousvisit to'them in 1.889,on which
j: occasionthey had desired that their district might be administered as a CrqwnColony,
I and.shewed them the Fery great, difficulties'which lay in the way .of an:;immediate
:'' realizationof such a form of Government. I then informed them that Her Majesty's
I. Governmenthad decided to:sppoint a Consular officer in each River district, ~vho
. worn be resident in the district and who would be the Representative of Her. Majesty .
theQueen ; to this officerthey could alwaysappeal in any.matter, and to him they could
:: always come for advice. . He would be responsible to Her Majesty's Government,
through the Consul-General at Old Calabar, that law and order should he maintained,
i' .and that every .man should be allowed to practise his'trade or calling in peace-; and
.. that,to meet 'theextra expenseswhich this.form of government would entail, it mas
:c- proposedto imposeduties on certain articles of import. 'I then went carefully throngh
g eachitem of the Customs Tariff,agd explained it to them.
i. . At the conc~usion of the meeting' 1 introduced General ~arnrnill .to them astheir
:- future Vice-Consul,and requested them to give me a statement in writing to the effect
:: that theythoroughly understoodthe duties, that the said duties were imposedwith their
consent,and that they would abideby them.
A discussion followed whichlasted a considerabletime; they finally said that they
,: wouldbe grateful for a few daysto consider the matter. Tsaid I would givethem three
days,and that, on my return, I should like to have my answer in writxng. I point.ed
-ant 'to them that if there was anything ,~ey did not nnderstand, or if they did-not.
: 'cosent to the impositionof 'theduties, they were to let me know.
The meeting then terminated. A deputation of .the New Calabar Chiefs waited
:. uponme afterwards, and stated they had quite understood the duties and saw that ic
.:,masfor'the good of the country that they shouldbe imposed; but they hoped that, as
:;.they'paiilequal duties.with the Bonny men, they would'have a Consular officerfor
;:-.%hernsehes.
'j' I told them in repk that Iwould considertheir request, but that, at present, they
5. mustbe content with periodical visits fromthe Vice-Consul at Bonny. I also informed
>.themthat, anmj-return from Old Calabarj -Ishould come.and pay them a visit, and we
rwouldthen talk. the matter over.
f. Onthe followingday I proceeded in Her Majesty'sship " Swallow," accompanied 1:
.'byHer Majesty's ship ctRacer,"_$.: Old ,Cal,abar ,aying sent messages in adrance .<
4.:mmmoning a.;.\....~~o;~~<&.~S~~~~~8~& I$f I&. ~-_&.ir;'$fi ~atv d~ay~feDnIs ta ..
::Angnst. Being delayed by bid weather, I was unable to hold the meetinguntil '#onday
:.3rdAugust.
7 landed .at 10 A.M. under a salute of eleven guns froin Her Majesty's ship
,;:~.wallow;" and, accompanied by several of the officers from Her Majesty's ships,
..,: : . ..I..
$g~-g$$J i&qg:; poke, -and,:;the:..~,ther,~~;$$$~Ke;&~~.s;:.G :~hqefsof Old Calabar, in .. ..
${p*b*s
...:"-' o Chief or ~eadman of any importance was absent on this occasion. I.SYZ+
@gtje&a .G.b.sattmti$$y$ ad, at the conclusion of my address to the Chiefs,tl~er
x:-reqne~te~ to &lidrdraw to consult among themselves. This I consented ti,
land, in half-an-hour, they returned,-.apds.aid-they-would gladly sign a Paper such as 1
&.,. asked them to. ~h~~:.B.~h-.+.>*.:+-<*.;+.<r,,+,.Tz2*<&..:-- .. t&o ksu btects^:i;mq~:~n:.,:?ne
d7& :,tkga :bwd :1. &odd:- e&jfi&n .tt -~~~~..~~a4 -es~y~&-6 ll~tG ~iV.t&a, 4m,ent,%ehavioar of the late Consul and his police. T said that this had-nothii to do with
the present question, but that it was my duty to inquire into, and, if I thought it
necessary, to take action regarding any complaint theybrought before me,and that I
should most certainlydoso ata later date. They then signed the document herewith
inclosed, and the meeting terminated.
The nature of their complaint forms thesubject of another despatc6.
On the followingday, the 4th August, I proceeded in Her Majesty'sship " Racer "
to Bonny, Her Majesty'sship c'Su~allow"having goneto Fernando Po to coal.
On the 4th August me anchored at Bonny, and on the 6th I proceeded to Okrika,
a large and important trading village situated 22 milesfrom the mouth of the river.
The 0 krika peoplehave a verybad reputation in the Bonnydistrict ; they are professing
cannibals, and in a large temple,(" Ju-j uhouse) in the centre of the village are kept
the skulls and bones of the victims of their last cannibal orgie, which took place in
November 1888,andforwhich theywerefined by ConsulHewett. Twenty-fivepuncheons
{equal to2001.)of thisfine still remains unpaid, and it wasto make inquiries regarding
tlus-also becausethe Chiefshad not attended my meetingin Bonny-although they had
been duly summoned,that I went to pay them a visit. On my way to the Mission
House we passed the " Ju-jn" house referred to, where the skulls, bones, &c., are
displayed tothe Fiewof anybody passing.
I was unable to see theKing, and, as a heavy stormwas approaching, Iretnmed,
together with the two naval officerswho had accompanied me tothe steam-cutter. As
we were about to embark some400 villagers turned out and menaced us, but attempted
no violence; the expressionsusedby the natives were of 2 most insulting description.
There is aMissionstation at this placeOnmy return to Bonnyon the 27thAugust
Ireceived thetwoletters, copiesof whichare herein inclosed.
I mention this incident to showhow much yet remains to be done towards the
civiliziiof the Protectorate. 1 have summoned a meeting of the Okrika Chiefs for
Saturday next, the 5th September,when I propose pointingout to them vhat a standing
shameand disgrace the presence of their caebal Jn-jn "house is to them and &heir
people,and that if they do not, of their own accord, destroy the house and give up
cannibalism,I sl~allshortly take severe measuresto compelthem to do so.
On the followingday, the 7th August, Xheld my second meeting with the Bonny
Chiefs,on which occasion they presented me with a letter, copy of ~vhichI herewith
forward to your Lordship. The market question, which forms the subject of the last
paragraph of their letter,have dealt with in a separate despatch. At my desirethey
alsosigned a paper stating that they understoodthe duties,consentedto their imposition,
and would abideby them. I havethe honourto inclosethisdocumeut in original.
Her Majesty'sship '<Swallow " having returned fromFernando Po; I proceeded in
her to Bugama, the principal tom of the New Calabar district, and on the 9th Aupt
held a meeting of the King and Chiefswhere, after considerablediscussion,they signed
the documentwhich Ihave the honour to inclose herein. Tliey again repeated their
request to havea Consularofficerspeciallj appointed to themselves.
The following morning I proceeded in Her Majesty's ship CcSwallow," and
anchored in the OpoboRiver on the 12th August, having previouslywarned the Chiefs
ofmy arrival. A meeting was held the same afternoon. The Chiefs listened tomy
remarks explaining the new administratio11in silence, andsigned the document, which E
have the honour to inclose herewith, without any remark. Throngh their Head Chief
Ojolo they then asked me whether I had received any answer from your Lordship
respecting .their request that the body of their late Chief Ja Ja might be sent to them.
I then read yourLordship's telegram oftlle 11th Augnst, stating that the SpanishLaa
forbade exh~~mation except after a lapse of two years. This intelligence was received
wit11something akin to consternation,and after consulting amongst themselves,they
implored me to approach your Lordship once more on the subject, stating as their
reasons that, until their King was buried in their own country, they wodd alwaysbe
held up as objects of contempt amongst the neighbouriug tribes and that this would
lead to continual quarrels, and even petty wars, up the markets, and wouldbe .very
detrimental to trade. The European traders had informed me that trade was at a
complete standstill in the district.Under the circumstances,I informed them%at I
wouldonce more telegraph to your Lordship, but that I could hold out but fainthopes
~f their request being acceded to, for, althougI was sure thetHer Maiesty'sGovern-
ment were willing to help them in the matter, yet the law of bpa~nma~e negotiations
on the subject exceedinglj-difficu1t;l but that if by any chance their request was
acceded to; they mmt look uuon it as amark nf ~eno~iolf-rrn7-rnn __ --_- -- Majesty's Governmenta ,nd one of rvhicl~they must showtheir appreciation by assisting
meto open np civilizationand trade in the interior.
In connectionwith the above,1 may add that the day after my return to Bonny I
received!-ow Lordship's telegram of the 28th August, informing me that the Spanish
Governmenthad authorized, under certain restrictions, the exhumation of Ja Jaysbody-
The same day I proceeded to Opobo,and read the abot-e-mentionedtelegram to the
assembled Chiefs. The greatest joy prevailed, and the Chiefs begged that 1 would
thank Her Majesty'sGovernment for this nark. of favour ; they also-assured me that
theywould never forget what I had done for them, and would assist me, to the best of
theirability,n any undertaking Iwished to enter into.
1 left Opobo in Her Majesty'sship " Swallow " onthe '23thAugust, and anchored
in the Brass River on the 15th. 1had communicated with Brass by telegram from
Bonny,and had summoneda meetingfor the afternoon of the 15th.
On arrival at BrzsIwas informed that the Chiefshad sent a meqage to the effect
that they had a meeting of their own, and couildnot come to seeme 'tillthe next day,
owingto the distance they had to travel.On the foliowingday the Chiefs arrived, and,
atmy request,Captain Finnis, of Her Majesty'sship "Swallow," landed a party of sixty
seamenand marinesas a gnard ofhonour for m -self.
ti^ guard had a marked effect upon tIe behaviour of the Ghiefs, who were
-inclined'at first to be unruly and somewhat truculent in their manner. Before
commencingthe meeting, I informed the Chiefs that, when 1 sent them a message,
implicitobediencewaswhat I expected,and what I,as Representative of Her Majesty,
wouldhave.
I then proceededto.address them upon the subject of the new administration. At
the conclusionof my remarks they stated that they had understood everything Ihad
said,and that now they wished to speak to me ou the subject of their markets. I said
thatI would listen to nothing ilntil they had given me their opinion regarding the
subjecton which Ihad spoken. Theythen requested leaveto retire, and havea meeting
theywould let me haveonsmyeranswer.esTo thisrImiconsented. They then retired to the,
neighbonringvillage of Twon, and held a meeting, whichlasted late into the night--at
whichmeeting it was unanimouslydecided that they would refuse to sign any paper
respecringdnties, &c., untIlhad given a written promiseto get back their markets for
themfromtheNiger Company.
Having been privately informed of this decision,I opened the meeting on the
followingmorning by informing: the Chiefs that I had been sent by Her Majesty's
Governmentto look after their mterests, as well as those of the White mall,and tllat,
tllereforI,wasthere as their representativeand friend.
With regard to thepaper I had asked them to sign,1wished tOam to exercisetheir
'om11 entire free-willin the matter, and that, therefore, was not a question of their
$signingas a farour tome for which another favour would be bestowed in return. If,
&owever,theyrefused to sign, I must request them to sign another paper stating that
&heydidnot consent to the imposition of duties, and givingtheir reasons for the same,
iyhicaipaper I should forward to Her Majesty's Government. After considerable
ponsoltationamongst themselves they informed me that I was their father, and their
pother, andthat, for the f~~ture,they woulddo everythingI told them, that t.heydeeply
9egretted not having come to the meeting on the Saturday, but it was not altogether
en fault. They said they wouldgladly sign a paper consenting to the imposition of
forthey saw that the Governmentofthe country coula not be carried an without
' Severallocal matters were :hen entered upon, which I handed over to Captain
,Vice-Consulof the district, whom I had dulyinstalled at the meetingof the
ce markets \yas then introduced. From what I could
m my previous knowledgeof tile subject, I am of opinion
nt is arrived at with the Niger Cornpal~y,the trade of
ist, as the Niger Companyha~e madeTreaties with all the
back of the Brass River, and it is ia~posiblefor the native
clihoodwith the heavy export duties on palnloiland-kernels
all have the honour to report to your Lordship at a later
the statement made respecting duties by the Chiefsof the
n the same day I proceededin Her Majesty'sship 'Swallow " to WarrIKby way 42
of the Forcados River. At the mouth of this ri~er we were joined by Her Majesty's
sAfrican Steam-ship Company,we proceededto Warri, and anchored there at midday onm the
the 19th Angust.
The Chiefs of Warri belong to the Jekri tribe, and are under Nana, the great-
middleman Chief of Benin. They are, however,very anxious to become independent,
and as the tradehere promisesto be one of the most flourishingin the Protectorate, and
asNana is already safficientlypowerful, and threatens to become a second Ja-Ja, 1
thought it politic to establish a separate Vice-Consulateat this place, and to conclhde
with the Chiefsof Warri a separate protection Treaty. My meeting with the Warri
Chiefstook place on the 19th Au,oust,and passedoff satisfactorily in every respect.
I forward herewith a copy of the Treaty Gade with these Chiefs.
A statement tl~at they understood, and consentedto the impositionof duties, was
made to Captain Synge, Her Britannic Majesty'sDeputy Commissionerand Vice-Consul,
in my presence.
On the 20th Augnst I proceeded in steam-ship " Whydah," accompanied by Her
Majesty's ships" Swallow "and CRacer," through the creeks to Benin, at which place
we anchored on the evening of the 21st. The .meeting here was the largest and most
important of any I had held. Nana camein a war-canoe, paddled by npwards of 100
slaves,with four or five similar canoes in attendance, and with a personal escort of
twenty men armed with Winchester repeating-rifles. All the other Chiefs of any note,
escorted by large retinues,were alsopresent.
On this occasion,having two of Her Majesty'sships with me, I requested Captain
Finnis to land as large a pard of honour as possible,and 120 seamen and marines
paraded on shore. This d~splayhas, so I have been informed by all the European
traders, had a most excellent effect,such a large number of White men never having
been seen in the river before.
The Chiefs listened to my remarks with great attention, and a lengthy discussion
followed,during which they showed that they thoroughly ~mderstoodthe matters in
question. Nana had in his possession a copy of tbe Proclamation containing the
schedule of duties, whichhe informed me he had carefully studied so that his European
friends should not charge more for their goods than tvas laid down in the schedule.
All the Chiefs,headed by Nana, and followedhy his rival (Numa), signed the Declara-
tion,which I have Herewiththe honour to inclose. Nana then stood up and said that
he wished I would bring to the cotice of Her Majesty's Government the treatment he
had received from ConsulAnnesley. He (Nana) spoke in a veryimpassionedmanner
for several minutes. 1 told him that his letter of complaint had been received at the
Foreign Office,and that it had been sent to Consul Annesleyfor any'remarks he might
have to make upon it, and that, as soon as I heard, I would comnlnnicate with him
through the Vice-Consulwhom Eier Majesty's Government had appointed for their
district. The meeting then terminated, Nana and the Chiefs begging me to convey
their thanks to Her Majesty'sGovernment for having appointed a resident Consular
~fficerto their district, to whomthey might apply in any difficulty.
I held a separate meeting of the European traders afterwards, and it was evident
to me that in this RiverI wouldhave to combatanother Ja Ja difficulty. Some of the
traders representedNana as everjthing that is honest and upright; others painted him
in colours exactly the opposite. One thing is certain, that he is a man possessed of
great power, and wealth, astute, energetic,and intelligent.
I informed the European traders that 1 was prepared to maintain order at the
markets assoon as I had a revenue wherewith to defraythe necessary expense of doing
so (they had complainedthat they couldnot trade at the markets because they cor~ldnot
get fair play owingto Nana's greatpower andinfluence), but I pointed out that I should
not be able to obtain the amount of revenue 1required, nor they the amount of protec-
tion, for somemonths to come,as their storehouseswere stocked .with dutiable articles
whichhad been expressly importedto escapethe duty. -
I may here add that the African Associationhave been particularly zealous in this
particular.
I told the traders that, with regard to the question of their proceeding to the
markets to obtainproduce direct, cr their employingthe rniddienleilto do so, rested with
themselves; all I could promise them was that those who proceeded to themarkets
should obtainprotection there,as soonas I had suEcient revenue to insure the same.
From all I heard, Iam of opinion that the trade of Beninis capable of immense
development.
I leftBeninin Her Majesty'sship 'Swallow " on the 23rd August and returned 43
i'
i $0 Bonnyon the 27th, having visited all the rivers in my district where European
, factories-are established with the exc.eption of the Kwo-Ibo, a small stre+m where,
i: bowever,there are someimportant. plantations. These I shall visitfrom Old Calabar.
At the conclusion of each meeting:in a district I introduced to the 'European .:
5... Czptain D. C. Macdonald,Brass District.
- w. Caiqs:.&*t5:~gt;0g~~,~. District
s. .,. .--t:.l:.p.'~~;~~~ * .. .~~
t: ... . I have, &c.
8
f$ (S.igned) CLAUDE M. MacDONALD,
6:
8:
8 Inclosure 1 in No. 6 1.
g?
k. Declarationsigned at Old Cala&ar River, August 3,1891.
r* KE, the Undersigned,Kings, Chiefs, andHeadmen of theOld Calabar and district,
F3erebvdeclarethat we thoroughly nnderstand the customs duties whichhave been road
by Major ClaudeMacDonald, Her Majesty '_..o._,-..1-Generaa lnd Commissioner.
~v alsodeclarethat,.$.:-:;.;.;::~,"t*:. .. ..,,...,O. ?~.:.j--abor&r..m.a. .ailti&%
nd \:.illabideby them. ,.... .. .
(Signed) KING DUKE IX.
(And 26 others.)
I cerbitf haytI was present at the meeting of the Old Calabar Chiefsheld by Major-'
.Ji, hIacDonaldon the 3rd Angust,189 1; heard the customs dnties, &c., explained
fs, and witnessed their signatures.
Jams F.ROBERTS,
Deputy Commissioner and Vice-Consul.
I herebydeclire that Itrsnslaied the fbiegqing to the King and Chiefsof the Old
Iabardistrict, and they thoroughly.understood its meaning.
UDOAKPAK BASSY,
Interpreterto the Consular Court.
Inclosure 2 in No. 6 1.
The .Christians qf Okrika to MajorMacDonald.
Okrika,August14,1891. *
s and Church adherents of Okrika, do humbly beg toapproach
hoping yo11may accept the same most kindly and grant us a
Wedesiremost respectfully to express to you, the Consul-General,the Vice-Consul,
..theofficersof Her Majesty'sgnn-boat, our regret for the rude conduct shown to
rtion of ow people'on your last- isi it.
feel sure that not one of us Christians or Cfiurclladherents could
ch unseemlybehaviour, for we have been tanght otherwise. 'rll,e LondonGaze t t:e,
Lord Cllaabcrhita'aOBr, Jhar'r Bzli~a,- cords.to-bedelivarto-theLord Cham- .in.-- -
Mind 2f 1885. 1tham-toHiaBoyP1.Higluw..- --. in..-.-i.g - -
OTICE ishby given,tbrtHer Maje3ty's The StateAprtmentr nill be openfor the
N Binb* win htkept on h*,, fie receptionof Companycoming toCoor athtalf-
6thof June next. put one o'cloct -9
Lord Cham-
Lord Clrttinberi afdiseSt. Jmadr Palace,.
Ma3- 1-.1885.
(Pm OF B-L.-~P=~U OT LWIBTG-
7OTHighness The Prinoa of 'FFde6rill,by PIACE SQB FOBHG-N 1
wmmmd of The Queen, hold a Leveeat Sf' T the hc. CG&, WRikRdit, he 8d
James'sPalace, on behalf ofHer Majesty,on A. dayof .T% 1885.
Tueui~~,the 9th of June m~t, two o'clock
1tis The Qneen'spleasu hatPresentatito ons By Her MajestfaMort Honoamble Privp .
Bib Boyd Higitness attbe Leveeshallbe con- Counoil.
riderod aseqninrlent to Prmentotionsto Her = Lordsand othersofHer MSjq'o ht
llnjectr. - . T EOLIO~~I~ P~YY COUDE~~.by V ~ W .~d
in exercise ofthe polrersin thevesteundcr
Rs~u~lrross ' The Contagious Disease(Animnls) ActE,1978
10 nh OBSERTKDAT TEE QUEEN'S LEVEE TO BE md 188.4ad of orergotheprower enaaiq ahem
IlELDcy Ells~YAL ~GENE~S TEEPA~CG inthibehalf. dohereby approve of thefollo.ring
or TALES, ON CEHALP OF HER Mm, Af ph- of&! Port,of Bristol s hn&g-ph
ST.JAXES'PSALACE for foreign animals not subjtotslaughteor
By Hm Majesry'Commarsd, qunmniine:
ne h'obiemen and Gentlemen \rho propose (1.)BnilolDockt Larulify-Place.
10 nuend Ha mestg's hree, at St.James's All th~t space and premisin the parisk of
Y~PCC ,e reqnesM to bring with them two kdminaer. in the dty and .rannty of Brisbl,
Iqe cank with their names ~itontonthenorth sidof the HarbourM~8r
tllenon, ontobe left withThe Queen'Page in 1'7hadcommencinag to pointat tl~\raterede
attendrncc in the Corridor, and other of thaotthsideof the Floating Rarbour twenty-
bc deliveretofie Lord Cbbedain, whorill fiveyardsontkcreabouteastoftlll~ndin~-~l~~~
announcethe name toHioBoyd Highness. of the as Korh Feny, thence inan easterly
Pazrszxr~nom. direction for a dishncc of sixtysne yards or
Any Bobleman orGentlamanwvboproposesto themihuts bounded by tho Floating Barboar,
be presented,must leavst the LordCbber- th~?ncat a rightanglein n southerly direction
kin's Ofice,St.James's Palace, beforel~oclvcforR ~~S~~DCof deven yi~& or thereabouts
o'~OCk m clear beforetheLeree. a card bounded by n ~~-.oodeence, thenc3 n right
~th hie namemitten &hereon.andwiththename . anglc iu1 westerlydirectiofor a distao~ of
of tile Koblamanor Gentleman by whombe ito !fifty-two yards or thereabouts bounded ba
be presented. In ordetocarry outtheding wooden fen- pallel to the wateredge of the
reations that no prtsentstion can be stda saiWl~arf,thence at a right angle 8nsouth-
Levee by s personacrudly attending erly direction for a distance of one hudred and
thatLevee, itis also neeessaythatan intima- forty-sercu yaror thereabouts along theast
tion from the Eobleman or Gentlema who is sidcof the cat.tle-path bounded ba wooden
to make the preseot~tion, of lris intention to be, thencat n right angle in an easterly
present, shoulaccompany the presentation cardirection fardistance of siw-onc ysrda or
&ie to, whichwill bo submitted to hererrhutsdong thesouthsideof the saiBar-
The Qlleen for Her Majesty'snpprohtionIt is bourRnil~vayThad bounded by a woodenfence,
Her AIajestfs command that no presentations thence inR southerly diieetionaodistancof
shall b de at Levees, exceptin accordance trrenty-fouyard6or thereabouts bounded ba
wit11thabove reCI&ti0xa. wooden fence, thencein an easterly direction
AXIt is.-cL.nrIy >:-,:--,--:., in----c.I- Ir----Aa----r:..e--AL-I-ba~--.:--e--w-o2:- (Sans~-Fsv=) For* Olgi can,e3,1865.
T theCwrrdl PhL, CPiriLcliQtt,5th THE Queen has been gracious llyasedto
A dayof June, I*. appointHenry Gronr. Eq.; now Her Mitjesty's
CbrrralatSaplea, to be Her Majestjs Consul
By HerMnjestja Uast HooountIe Privy for SouthItaly.includingtile Sourl~eAdintic
Coma. andSnuthernMditmneaa Ecgions, to reside
HE LMds and otheii-uf HfirIIkjesty-ahIwtt Naplu.
T HonourablePrivy ConaciIbyvirtue andin The Queexi has .tso beengrsciodv. pleased
exd ofthepowernin them restedunderTlte to appoint Alexsoder Roeder Fmnz. Esq.,'paw
ContagiousDimeases(bnimale) Act,1878,aadof Her lUajestyConsu or the Province of Borne,
cvcm othewwer tnablk,~ them intbisb4a. -o to be Her A&jesty'~Consul for htm1 Italy,
old& and iiaherebyorilrilk,s follow: --clo@,a theProvi~~ccsfRope, P-%% ----coii,
.--1.2 The '-=wing Area (n~ely),-iiTZ aad Maceratr, torrsidk-itRome.
caanb ofEdinbwh comprisedmthin tbefollow-
ingb;aoudrrief,& istb my, on the souththe
roadfromSlateford to Edinburgh,on tbewesta
small brookruaning towar& Gotg;e,and on the
norlh and'estshe fielodfGorgiePuk,-which (C. 2337.)
was d6cW by Order of Cound dated the Bwtd of Trade,W&iZ Giwdcns,
twtiiq:foarthday of April, me thoumuni eight Juru 2,1685.
hundred and eighty-li toe,e an Area infected
with swine-feva, is haeby dedaredto be frea TEE Board of Trade have received fromthe
from swine-fever,ad that Brea &dl, from htnzy of StateforForeign Affairsa Despatch
Ausamm~mmen- ,+nf-hean -rom A_--d taclogng a traadeion. ofa-D~ee ..
Area infectedwithminafeper. ofl-ihe Governmentof the United States of
-.XLThb-Order .shaU.trikc-effafrom-m im.m?. Chlornbiiin virtuof which the Customs'duties
diatelpafterthe sixU dayofJune, onethousand 'liitKGichkgcd inthatcountry upon{beimpor-
eighthundred und eightj-five. tation of a large number of artichave been
C.L. Pd. wnniderably incn.med. The Dc. with its
Commdsnre,Department ofothepBoardofoMe.-the
Foreign OficeJrmo 6,1885.
(C.2365.) -
NOTIFICATIOX. Board ojTrcrdr,WhitdiailGardcrPs,
I)mg PBOT~~CTO~~T EP THE NIGE BmslCTV June2, 1W.
*l?-IEBoard of Tzade have received fkomthe
I T d1.t underlrodbyvirtueofcvPin TreatiesioSeere* of Statefor Foreign Affairn copy of
concluded ber~veenthemonth of July hist and a Despatcfhrom Her Majesty's Consul at Saint
Peterslbaqh, reporti&ru a grarlutedde of
the p-nt datz, and by other lawful means, chargesauk tbe dcnominaifon o* clerical "ar
inafter rrferred ta.~thekNiger 'Distridwere- hns\teeestablisheatallRu5sianCustom Bonses
placed underUe Protectoratc of Her Majesyhe inadditioto the present legcbarga.
Queen Lornthe dateof the saiTreatiesrespec- The following i~the scaleon which these
tively. chorg~swillbclevied:-
Ttrr BritiProtectorate of tNiger Districts (1.) Oneach'dcdaration or invoideimported
cornpricesthe tenitaria on the liae of comt go&, or also for each declarationor similar -
betrrcexthe BritishProtectarateof hgas and documen relative to exportpods:-
the right or westernriver-bank the mouth of When theamount af duty is .fromrbls. cop.
the Rio deRey. It *her -prim the terri- 1Orbls.toI~Orbla. ... . 0 30
torieson both banks of the Nigerhm its con-1 Dittoftom IW rbL to600 rMs 0 60
fluenc weith theRirer Beno6 atLokoja, to the1 Ditto fmm 500 rblrb 1,000 rbk 1 00
sce, u wellasthe territorieson Lothbanks ofthe 7Ti1entl~eduty exceeds I,OIK)rbls.,
River Benu6 from the wn0oeace, up to and I thenon every 109rblw,orportion
incladig Ibi. ' thereof .... .a. .a. . 0 10 .
Thc measures in courseof preparation tl~c XOTE -Declarntions or invoicesofpd~, the
adpliniyprtioof justice and the maintenanof~ duty onwhich is under10rbls., arexempt from
peaceand good orderin theNige r istricoi!! chaqp.
bedul? notifiedand published. (2.)Oneach declarationor similadocument :
relating to export goo& notlinblc to duty011
exportatiou one~ch1,000 rb1.s.of heir declared
nlue (fracti on1s,0G6rblst.bereckoned a6 n
\\-holethousand) .. ... ... 2;)cop.
ForeignOtficeiUq 9,1866. (3.) On eachpermitfor ~rceivi~goods oat of
THE Queen hasbeengraciou~ly pled to Cusloms'wnreliouses,or for escort of goods bv
appoint Darid Boyle Elair, Esq., to be Her Customs'officers,including permits for reccipt of
bla.ieq'Vice-Consul for theTenituries under pards fomardcd bypost ... ... J5cop.
the Prolectorate Germany, in the Districts of h'o~~.--Purnits rehtiug to merclmadizc, the
, theCameroons,bounded on the west by thcRio duty onwhickis uader 10 rbls., uexempt from
del Rey. 1charge.
(4.) On er,ch Ct~stoms'receinotc for duty
Fo+eip Ofice,May 21,1885. nnd othcrdues paid... .. .... 20 cop.
THE Qucen hasbeen ,mcio~sly ploascd t~ (5.)For copies of docurncn~sissuto prirn~c
nppoint Harry Lionel Churcllill,Esq.,nowBritishsons or public compaiiies,psl1cccomtiob.
Vicc- Consul at Telrlan,to beUer Nujestj's 25 lineto eachshcet ,.. ... 20cop.
\rice-Conaliu tLe dominion^of tlic Sultnnof
Zanzibar. . .- . . . . .
. . . 3
, .... . .
. .
. .. . Issueby the Colonid Otlice. [CromnCopyright Rurroed.]
. . . .. Report
.. ... .
by His Majesty's Government in the UnitedKingdom of
GreatBritain and Northern Ireland to the Councilof
the Leagueof Nations on theAdministration of the
CAMEROONS
UNDERBRITISHMANDATE
For the Year 1930.
(For Reports for 19S1 ad 1929 ice ~Y~w-Parlianen~r~ Publ&ogiom
Co2onial':Ya. 42, llf9, and Cobxial :Yo .4, 1910,
price 5s.9d. on3 5s.rerpeetiucly.)
--- ---.-
PBLWED L\D PCBLZSEED BT EX5 -XUESTfS STATIOXEEX OPPICt.
TO he~urcha~ddirect~rrom BX- STATIOSERY OFFICE ~t~h~foIlowin(:addrea:s
-4JutrYock Zcmt. Xmehclter:do1.SrCAodrer'aGCresc.oc&did:inburgh:
lS.DoaecrrlSquare \res(Bdfuc. (3)23td Juue, 1861.Grmt Brimiuand Sau Sahdw. EX.
traditioTreaty. .iccession 8th lugust. 1930.
(4)95th September, 1928. Great Britain and Pauama.
Treaty ofCommerceand Xarigacion. -%cession 10th June.
1930.
(ii) InternationalFrontiers.
15. The Deciarationofthe Boundaryberneen the Britishand
Frenchsptleres of the 3Iandoted Territo~ uoi the Cameroons.
which was signe dy the Governorof tbe Co!on!*and Protectarae
of Sigeria and hg rheHigh Commissionerofthe French Republic
in the areaunder FrenchMandate, mas confirmedby the respective
Home Governmentsearly in 1931.
16. It is uoderstd thatt6is Deckration isnor the productd
a boundatvcommissioc nons~ituted forthe purpse ofcart~ingouz
the pro\-is~ouof Irtic!eIof the Ifandote, but ouiy the resultof a
preiiruinaq survey conducted in orderto determinemore exactly
than 1rasdone in the Milner-SimonDeclatatio~~ of1919 the line
ulrirrrateito be followedby:he boundarycomluisoion;but, none
the less, theDeclarationdoesin substancedefinetbe frontier.This
Declaratiouhaving beencot~firrued by the two Governments, the
actual delimitation ofthe boundary will now be entrustedto 3
boundarycommissionappointedfor thepurposein accordancewitb
the prorisi~nsof ArticleIof the JIandate,
(1) Cameroons Ptovinca.
17. Tlle Cameroons Prorince, as in pre15011F.;ears, is divided
into four -4dministrarirDivisiotr:-
(1)Victoria;
(3) Kunrba:
.(:3rMarnfe:
(4)Bsmeuda.
Each ofthefour Divisionsis in cllu~e oia District OEcer,who is
directly responsible to thnesirlct~iu chargeot'the Proviuct.
1s.Tbe alrzratiou in the boundxi of Tictoria and Icumba
DiGisions. forestrado~eciin paragraph34 of the 1929Report. has
bee11partiallycr~rricdoutin accordancetvitt the smtemeuc made
bythe -4ccreditedRepresentative in his addresscothe Perrn;~uear
313ndates Comrnissiolrduring the examination G£ r8ar Eelmrr.
That is tosay.that the Bakole villages,on the coast line. and tbr
fish to\$-nsin the estuaq of the Rio del Rey hare heen transferretl
from Iiumba to Victoria Division. Tlieobjectoi this tratisicris co
assistthe prevzncionof ses-bornecol~tnband tmde b~ placiay the
whole coast fiile of the Prorince underthe admii~istratirecontroi
ol the Divisional Oliiccr.Victoria. iosteadof hving one pan of
tile coast in Victoria and the other iu Xurnba Division. The
orizinal i~lte~itito it~cluc3i the siimetime rilterritory ofthe
11330 I4
Written Replies of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to Questions put by Judges at the Hearings and Written Comments on the Written Replies of Cameroon