Non-Corrigé
Uncorrec ted
Cour internationale International Court
deJustice of Justice
LAHAYE
THE HAGUE
Audience publique
tenue le mardi 5 mars 2à010heures, au Palaisde la Paix,
sous laprésidencede M. Guillaume,président,
en l'affaire de la Frontièreterrestre etmaritime entre le Cameroun et leNigéria
(Cameroun c. Nigéria;Guinéeéquatoriale(intervenant))
COMPTERENDU
YEAR 2002
Public Sitting
held on Tuesday 5March 2002,ut 10am, at the PeacePalace,
President Guillaumepresiding,
in thecaseconcerning the Land andMaritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria
(Cameroon v.Nigeria: EquatorialGuinea intervening)
VERBATIM RECORDPrésent: M. Guillaume,président
M. Shi,vice-président
MM. Ranjeva
Herczegh
Fleischhauer
Koroma
Mme Higgins
MM. Parra-Aranguren
Kooijmans
Rezek
Al-Khasawneh
Buergenthal
Elarabyj,uges
MM. Mbaye
Ajibola,jugad hoc
M. Couvreurg,reffierPresent: President Guillaume
Vice-President Shi
Judges Ranjeva
Herczegh
Fleischhauer
Koroma
Higgins
Pana-Aranguren
Kooijmans
Rezek
Al-Khasawneh
Buergenthal
Elaraby
Judgesad hoc Mbaye
Ajibola
Registrar CouvreurLe Gouvernementdela Républiquedu Camerounest représenté par :
S.Exc.M.Amadou Ali,ministred7Etatchargé de la justice, garde dessceaux,
comme agent;
M. MauriceKamto, doyen de la faculté des sciences juridiques et politiques de l'universitéde
YaoundéII, membrede la Commissiondudroit international,avocatau barreaude Paris,
M. PeterY. Ntamark,professeur àlafacultédessciencesjuridiquesetpolitiquesdel'université de
Yaoundé IIBarrister-at-Law,membre de1'InnerTemple, anciendoyen,
comme coagents,conseilsetavocats;
M. AlainPellet, professeuà l'universitéde ParisX-Nanterre, membreet ancienprésidentde la
Commissiondudroit international,
comme agentadjoint, conseiletavocat;
M. JosephMarie Bipoun Woum, professeur à la facultédes sciencesjuridiques et politiquesde
l'universitédeYaoundé IIancienministre,anciendoyen,
commeconseillerspécialetavocat;
M. MichelAurillac,ancienministre,conseillerd'Etathonoraire,avocaten retraite,
M. Jean-Pierre Cot,professeuà l'universitédeParis 1(Panthéon-Sorbonne)a,ncienministre,
M. Maurice Mendelson, Q. C., professeur émérite l'universitédeLondres,Barrister-at-Law,
M. Malcolm N. Shaw,professeur à la facultéde droit de l'universitéde Leicester,titulaire de la
chairesirRobertJennings,Barrister-at-Law,
M. BrunoSimma, professeur à l'universitéde Munich, membre de la Commission du droit
international,
M. Christian Tomuschat, professeuà l'universitéHumboldde Berlin, ancien membre et ancien
présidentde laCommissiondudroitinternational,
M. OlivierCorten, professeuàlaFacultéde droitde l'universitélibrede Bruxelles,
M. DanielKhan, chargéde coursà l'Institutdedroit international del'universitédeMunich,
M. Jean-Marc Thouvenin, professeurà l'Université de Paris X-Nanterra,vocat au barreau de ,
Paris,société d'avocatsysias,
comme conseilset avocats;The GovernmentoftheRepublicof Camerounis represented by:
H.E. Mr.AmadouAli,Minister ofStateresponsible for Justice, Keepeo rfthe Seals,
asAgent;
Mr. Maurice Kamto, Dean, Facultyof Law and Political Science,University of Yaoundé II,
memberof the InternationalLawCommission,Avocatatthe ParisBar, Lysias Law Associates,
Mr. PeterY. Ntamark, Professor,Facultyof Law and PoliticalScience, Universityof YaoundéII,
Barrister-at-Law, member ofthe InnerTemple, formerDean,
as Co-Agents,CounselandAdvocates;
Mr. AlainPellet, Professor, University of ParisX-Nanterre,memberand formerChairmanof the
InternationalLaw Commission,
as DeputyAgent,Counseland Advocate;
Mr. Joseph-MarieBipoun Woum,Professor, Facultyof Law and Political Science, University of
YaoundéII, formerMinister,formerDean,
asSpecialAdviserandAdvocate;
Mr. MichelAurillac,former Minister,HonoraryConseillerd '~tat,retiredAvocat,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Cot, Professor, UniversofParis 1(Panthéon-Sorbonne),formeM r inister,
Mr. MauriceMendelson,Q.C., EmeritusProfessor Universityof London, Barrister-at-Law,
Mr. Malcolm N. Shaw, Sir Robert Jennings Professorof International Law, Faculty of Law,
Universityof Leicester, Barrister-at-Law,
Mx-. Bmno Simma, Professor, University of Munich, member of the International Law
Commission,
Mr. Christian Tomuschat, Professor, Humboldt University of Berlin, former member and
Chairman,InternationalLaw Commission,
Mr. OlivierCorten,Professor, Faculty ofLaw,Universitélibrede Bruxelles,
Mr. DanielKhan, Lecturer,InternationalLawInstitute,UniversityofMunich,
Mr. Jean-Marc Thouvenin,Professor, Universityof Paris X-Nanterre,Avocat at the Paris Bar,
LysiasLaw Associates,
as CounselandAdvocates;Sir IanSinclair,K.C.M.G., Q.C., Barrister-at-Law, ancien membre de la Commission du droit
international,
M.Eric Diamantis,avocatau barreaude Paris,Moquet, Bordes & Associés,
i
M.Jean-Pierre Mignard,avocataubarreaudeParis,sociétéd'avocatL sysias,
M. JosephTjop,consultant à la sociétéd'avocats Lysias,hercheurau Centrede droitinternational
deNanterre(CEDIN),UniversitéParisX-Nanterre,
commeconseils;
M.Pierre Semengue,générad l'armée, contrôleugrénéradlesarmées,ancienchef d'état-major des
armées,
M. James Tataw,général de division, conseilllrgistique,ancienchef d'état-majorde l'arméede
terre,
S.Exc. MmeIsabelleBassong, ambassadeur du Cameroun auprès des pays du Benelux et de
l'Unioneuropéenne,
S.Exc. M. BiloaTang,ambassadeurdu Camerounen France,
S.Exc. M. MartinBelinga Eboutou, ambassadeur, représentant permaned nt Camerounauprèsde
l'organisationdesNationsUniesàNew York,
M.EtienneAteba, ministre-conseiller, chargéd'affaires a.i. à l'ambassade du Cameroun,
à La Haye,
M. Robert Akamba,administrateurcivilprincipal,chargéde mission au secrétariatgénérad le la
présidencede laRépublique,
M.Anicet Abanda Atangana, attachéau secrétariat général de la présided ncela République,
chargédecours àl'universitédeYaoundéII,
M.Ernest BodoAbanda,directeurducadastre,membre delacommissionnationaledesfrontières,
M.OusmaneMey,anciengouverneurde province,
Le chef SamuelMoka Liffafa Endeley, magistrat honoraireBarrister-at-Law,membredu Middle
Temple(Londres), ancienprésidentde lachambre administrativede laCoursuprême,
MeMarc Sassen,avocat et conseiljuridique,sociPetten,Tideman& Sassen(La Haye),
M.Francis Fai Yengo, ancien gouverneurde province, directeurde l'organisation du territoire,
ministèredel'administration territoriale,
M.Jean Mbenoun,directeur de l'administrationcentraleau secrétariatgénéradle la présidence de
la République,Sir Ian Sinclair,K.C.M.G., Q.C.,Barrister-at-Law,former member of the International Law
Commission,
Mr.Eric Diamantis,Avocatatthe ParisBar, Moquet,Bordes & Associés,
Mr. Jean-PierreMignard,Avocatatthe Paris Bar,LysiasLaw Associates,
Mr. Joseph Tjop, Consultant to Lysias Law Associates, Researcher atthe Cenee de droit
internationalde Nanterr(CEDIN), Universityof ParisX-Nanterre,
GeneralPierre Semengue, Controller-Generalof the Armed Forces,formerHead of Staff ofthe
ArmedForces,
Major-GeneralJamesTataw,Logistics Adviser,FormerHeadofStaffof theArmy,
H.E.Ms IsabelleBassong,AmbassadorofCameroonto theBenelux Countriesand to theEuropean
Union,
H.E.Mr.BiloaTang,AmbassadorofCameroonto France,
H.E. Mr. Martin Belinga Eboutou, Arnbassador,PermanentRepresentativeof Cameroon tothe
UnitedNationsinNew York,
Mr. Etienne Ateba, Minister-Counsellor, Chargéd'affaires a.i. at the Embassy of Cameroon,
The Hague,
Mr. Robert Akamba,Principal CivilAdministrator,Chargéde mission, General Secretariaof the
PresidencyoftheRepublic,
Mr.AnicetAbandaAtangana, Attaché to the GeneralSecretariat ofthe Presidencyof theRepublic,
Lecturer,UniversityofYaoundé II,
Mr. Ernest Bodo Abanda, Director of the Cadastral Survey, member, National Boundary
Commission,
Mr.OusmaneMey,formerProvincial Governor,
Chief Samuel Moka Liffafa Endeley, Honorary Magistrate, Barrister-at-Law, member of the
Middle Temple(London), former President ofthe Administrative Chamber of the Supreme
Court,
MaîtreMarc Sassen,AdvocateandLegalAdviser,Petten,Tideman & Sassen(The Hague),
Mr.Francis FaiYengo,former Provincial GovernorD, irector,Organisationdu Territoire,Ministry
of TerritorialAdministration,
Mr.Jean Mbenoun,Director, Central Administration, General Secretariattfe Presidencyof the
Republic,M. EdouardEtoundi,directeurde l'administration centrale au secrétariat généralladerésidence
de laRépublique,
M. Robert Tanda,diplomate, ministèredesrelationsextérieures
commeconseillers;
M. Samuel Betah Sona,ingénieur-géologue e, pertconsultantde l'Organisation des NatioUnies
pourledroit de lamer,
M. Thomson Fit. Takang, chef de service d'administration centrale asecrétariatgénéradl e la
présidencede laRépublique,
M.Jean-JacquesKoum,directeurde l'exploration, socién tationaledeshydrocarbures (SNH),
M. Jean-Pierre Meloupou, capitaine de frégate, chefde la division Afrique au ministère de la
défense,
M. PaulMoby Etia, géographed ,irecteurde l'Institutnationalde cartographie,
M. AndréLoudet,ingénieur cartographe,
M. AndréRoubertou,ingénieur général de l'armement, hydrographe,
commeexperts;
MmeMarieFlorence Kollo-Efon, traducteur interprèteprincipal,
commetraducteurinterprète;
Mlle Céline h'egre,chercheurau Centrede droit internationalde Nanterre (CEDIN),Universitéde
ParisX-Kariterre
Mlle Sandnne Barbier, chercheurau Centrede droitinternational deNanterre(CEDIN),Université
de Pans X-hanterre,
M. Richard PendaKeba, professeur certifié d'histoirec,abinet du ministre de la justice, ancien
provixw de lycées,
commeassistantsderecherche;
M. BoukarOumara.
M. GuyRoger Eba'a,
M. AristideEsso,
M.NkendeForbinake,
M.NfanBile,Mr. Edouard Etoundi,Director, CentralAdministration, General Secretariatf the Presidencyof
the Republic,
Mr.Robert Tanda,diplomat,Ministryof ForeignAffairs,
asAdvisers;
Mr. SamuelBetahSona,GeologicalEngineer, Consulting Expertto the UnitedNationsfortheLaw
of the Sea,
Mr. Thomson Fitt Takang,Department Head, Central AdministrationG, eneral Secretariatof the
Presidencyof the Republic,
Mr. Jean-JacquesKoum, DirectorofExploration,NationalHydrocarbonsCompany(SNH),
CommanderJean-PierreMeloupou,Headof AfiicaDivisionatthe Ministryof Defence,
Mr. Paul Moby Etia, Geographer, DirectoInstitutnationaldecartographie,
Mr.André LoudetC , artographieEngineer,
Mr. André RoubertouM , arineEngineer,Hydrographer,
as Experts,
Ms MarieFlorenceKollo-Efon, PrincipalTranslator-Interpreter,
Ms CélineNegre, Researcher, Centre d'études dedroit internationalde Nanterre (CEDIN),
Universityof Paris X-Nanterre,
Ms Sandrine Barbier,Researcher,Centred'études dedroit internationalde Nanterre(CEDIN),
Universityof Paris X-Nanterre,
Mr. Richard Penda Keba, Certified Professor of History, cabinet of the Minister of State for
Justice,formerHeadofHigh School,
asResearchAssistants;
Mr. BoukarOurnara,
Mr.GuyRogerEba'a,
Mr.AristideEsso,
Mr. Nkende Forbinake,
Mr.Nfan Bile,M. Eithel Mbocka,
M. OlingaNyozo'o,
commeresponsablesde la communication;
MmeRenéeBakker,
MmeLawrencePolirsztok,
MmeMireilleJung,
MmeTete BéatriceEpeti-Kame,
commesecrétairesde la délégation.
Le Gouvernementde la Républiquefédérad leuNigériaestreprésenté par:
S.Exc. l'honorable MusaE. Abdullahi, ministredYEtat,ministre de la Justice du Gouvernement
fédéradlu Nigéria,
commeagent;
Le chef RichardAkinjide SAN, ancien Attorney-Generalde la Fédération, membre du barreau
d'Angleterre etdu pays de Galles, ancienmembrede la Commissiondudroit international,
M. AlhajiAbdullahi IbrahimSAN, CON, commissaire pour les frontières internationales,
commissionnationaledesfrontièresduNigéria,ancienAttorney-Generalde la Fédération,
commecoagents;
MmeNella Andem-Ewa,Attorney-Generaletcommissaireàlajustice, Etatde CrossRiver,
M. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., membre de la Commission du droit international, membre du
barreau d'Angleterre, membrede l'Institut de droit international,
SirArthur Watts,K.C.M.G., Q.C., membredu barreaud'Angleterre,membrede l'Institutde droit
international,
M. James Crawford,S.C.,professeur de droit internatioàal'universitéde Cambridge,titulairede
la chaire Whewell, membre des barreauxd'Angleterre etd'Australie,membre de l'Institutde
droit international,
M. GeorgesAbi-Saab, professeur honoraire à l'Institut universitaire de hautes études
internationalesdeGenève, membrede l'Institutdedroit international,
M. AlastairMacdonald, géomètre, ancien directeurde'OrdnanceSuwey,Grande-Bretagne,
commeconseilset avocats;
M. TimothyH.Daniel,associé,cabinetD.J. Freeman,Solicitors,City de Londres,Mx- .ithelMbocka
Mr. OlingaNyozoyo,
asMedia OfJicers;
Ms RenéBakker,
Ms LawrencePolirsztok,
Ms MireilleJung,
Mr.NigelMcCollum,
Ms TeteBéatriceEpeti-Kame,
asSecretaries.
TheGovernmentof theFederalRepublicofNigeriais representedby:
H.E.the HonourableMusaE. Abdullahi, Ministerof State forJusticeofthe Federal Government of
Nigeria,
asAgent;
Chief RichardAkinjideSAN, Former Attorney-Generalof the Federation, Memberof the Bar of
Englandand Wales, former Memberofthe InternationalLawCommission,
AlhajiAbdullahiIbrahimSAN,CON,Commissioner, International Boundaries ,ationalBoundary
CommissionofNigeria,Former Attorney-GeneraloftheFederation,
as Co-Agents;
Mrs.Nella Andem-Ewa,Attorney-GeneralandCommissionerfor Justice,CrossRiver State,
Mr. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E.,Q.C., Member of the InternationalLaw Commission,Member of the
English Bar,Memberofthe Instituteof InternationalLaw,
Sir ArthurWatts, K.C.M.G., Q.C., Member of the English Bar, Member of the Institute of
InternationalLaw,
Mr. James Crawford, S.C., Whewell Professorof International Law, Universityof Cambridge,
Memberof the Englishand AustralianBars, Memberofthe InstituteofInternational Law,
Mr. Georges Abi-Saab,HonoraryProfessor, Graduate Instituteof InternationalStudies, Geneva,
Memberof the Institute ofInternationalLaw,
Mr. AlastairMacdonald, Land Surveyor, ormerDirector,OrdnanceSurvey,GreatBritain,
as CounselandAdvocates;
Mr.Timothy H. Daniel,Partner,D.J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityof London,M.AlanPeny, associé,cabinetD.J. Freeman,Solicitors,City deLondres,
M.David Lerer,solicitor, cabinetD.J.Freeman,Solicitors,Cityde Londres,
M.ChristopherHackford,solicitor,cabinetD. J.Freeman,Solicitors,CiQdeLondres,
MmeCharlotteBreide,solicitor,cabinetD. J. Freeman,Solicitors,City de Londres,
M.NedBeale, stagiaire,cabinetD. J.Freeman,Solicitors,Cityde Londres,
M.GeofEeyMarston, directeurdu département desétudes juridiquesau SidneySussexCollege,
Universitéde Cambridge, membredubarreaud'AngleterreetduPays de Galles,
commeconseils;
S.Exc.l'honorableDubemOnyia,ministred'Etat,ministredesaffairesétrangères,
M.Maxwell Gidado, assistantspécialprincipal du présidentpour les affaires juridiques et
constitutionnelles,ancienAttorney-Generalet commissaiàelaJustice,Etatd'Adamaoua,
M.AlhajiDahiruBobbo,directeurgénérac l,ommission nationaledes frontières,
M. A.O. Cukwurah,conseiladjoint,ancien conseiller en matièrede frontières(ASOP)auprèsdu
Royaumedu Lesotho,ancien commissairepour les frontières inter-Etats, commissionationale
des frontières,
M. 1.Ayua,membrede l'équipe juridiqud eu Nigéria,
M.F. A. Kassim,directeurgénérad luservicecartographiquedelaFédération,
M.AlhajiS.M.Diggi,directeurdesfrontières internationales,commission nationaledesfrontières,
M. K.A. Adabale,directeurpourledroitinternationalet ledroitcomparé,ministère delajustice,
M. A. B. Maitama,colonel, ministèrdeladéfense,
M.JalalArabi, membre de l'équipe juridiquduNigéria,
M.GbolaAkinola, membrede l'équipe juridiqueduNigéra,
M. K. M. Tumsah,assistant spécialdudirecteurgénéradle la commissionnationaledesfrontières
et secrétairede l'équijuridique,
M. AliyiuNasir,assistantspéciadu ministred7Etat,ministredela Justice,
commeconseillers;
M.ChrisCarleton,C.B.E.,bureau hydrographiquedu Royaume-Uni,
M.DickGent,bureau hydrographique duRoyaume-Uni,
M.CliveSchofield, unité de recherchseurles frontièresinternationales,UnivedeDurham,
M. ScottB.Edmonds, directeurdes opérationscartographiqueIs,ternationalMappingAssociates,Mr.AlanPeny, Partner,D.J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityof London,
Mr.DavidLerer,Solicitor,D.J. Freeman,Solicitors,City ofLondon,
Mr.ChristopherHackford,Solicitor,D.J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityof London,
Ms CharlotteBreide, Solicitor,D. J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityof London,
Mr.Ned Beale,Trainee,D.J.Freeman, Solicitors,Cityof London,
Dr. GeoffreyMarston,Fellowof SidneySussexCollege,Universityof Cambridge; Memberof the
Barof EnglandandWales,
H.E.the HonourableDubemOnyia,Ministerof Statefor ForeignAffairs,
Mr.Maxwell Gidado,SeniorSpecial Assistant to the President (LegalandConstitutionalMatters),
FormerAttorney-Generaland CommissionerforJustice, Adamawa State,
AlhajiDahiniBobbo, Director-GeneralN, ational Boundary Commission,
Mr. A. O. Cukwurah,Co-Counsel, FormerUN (OPAS) Boundary Adviser to the Kingdom of
Lesotho,FormerCommissioner,Inter-State Boundaries, ational BoundaryCommission,
Mr. 1.Ayua.hlember,NigerianLegalTeam,
Mr. F.A. Kassirn, urveyor-Generalofthe Federation,
AlhajiS.M. Diggi,Director(InternationalBoundaries),National BoundaryCommission,
Mr. K. A.Adabale,Director(Internationaland ComparativLaw)Ministryof Justice,
Colonel A.B Maitama,Ministryof Defence,
Mr.Jalal .Arabi. ember,NigerianLegalTeam,
Mr.GbolaALinolaMember,Nigerian LegalTeam,
Mr. K. hl Turnsah, SpecialAssistant to Director-General,National BoundaryCommissionand
Secretap totheLegalTearn,
Mr.Aliju Nasir.SpecialAssistantto theMinisterof State forJustice,
Mr.ChrisCarleton,C.B.E.,UnitedKingdomHydrographicOffice,
Mr.DickGent, UnitedKingdomHydrographicOffice,
Mr.CliveSchofield,InternationalBoundariesResearch Unit,Universityof Durham,
Mr.ScottB. Edmonds, Directorof CartographieOperations,InternationalMappingAssociates,M. RobertC. Riznitti, cartographe principal,InternationalMappingAssociates,
M. BruceDaniel,International MappingAssociates,
MmeVictoria J.Taylor,InternationalMappingAssociates,
MmeStephanieKimClark,InternationalMappingAssociates,
M. Robin Cleverly,ExplorationManager,NPAGroup,
MmeClaire Ainsworth,NPAGroup,
commeconseillersscientifiqueset techniques;
M. Mohammed Jibrilla,experteninformatique, commission nationaldees frontières,
MmeCoralieAyad,secrétaire,cabinet D. J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityde Londres,
MmeClaire Goodacre,secrétairec ,abinetD.J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityde Londres,
MmeSarahBickell,secrétaire,cabinetD.J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityde Londres,
MmeMichelleBurgoine, spécialisteen technologie de l'information, cabinet D.J.Freeman,
Solicitors,CitydeLondres,
commepersonnel administratif.
Le Gouvernement de la Républiquede Guinéeéquatoriale,qui est autorisée àintervenir dans
l'instance, estreprésenpar :
S.Exc. M. RicardoMangueObamaN'Fube, ministre d'Etat, ministredu travail et de la sécurité
sociale,
commeagentet conseil;
S.Exc.M. Rubén Maye Nsue Mangue, ministre de lajustice et des cultes, vice-présidentde la
commissionnationaledesfrontières,
S.Exc. M. CristobalMaiianaElaNchama, ministre desmines et de l'énergie,vice-présidentde la
commissionnationaledesfrontières,
M. DomingoMbaEsono, directeur national de la société nationale de pétrole de
Guinéeéquatoriale, membre de la commissionnationaledesfrontières,
M.Antonio NzambiNlonga,Attorney-General,
commeconseillers;
M.Pierre-Marie Dupuy, professeur de droit international public à l'université de Paris
(Panthéon-Assase )tàl'Institutuniversitaire eurode Florence,Mr.RobertC.Rizzutti,SeniorMapping SpecialistI,nternationalMappingAssociates,
Mr.BruceDaniel,InternationalMapping Associates,
Ms VictoriaJ.Taylor,InternationalMappingAssociates,
Ms StephanieKim Clark, InternationalMappingAssociates,
Dr.RobinCleverly,ExplorationManager,NPAGroup,
Ms ClaireAinsworth,NPA Group,
as Scientificand TechnicalAdvisers;
Mr.MohammedJibrilla, ComputerExpert,National BoundaryCommission,
MsCoralieAyad,Secretary,D.J.Freeman, Solicitors,CityofLondon,
Ms ClaireGoodacre,Secretary,D. J.Freeman, Solicitors,CiîyofLondon,
Ms SarahBickell,Secretary,D.J.Freeman, Solicitors,CityofLondon,
Ms MichelleBurgoine,IT Specialist,D. J. Freeman,Solicitors,City of London,
TheGovernmentof the RepublicofEquatoriaiGuinea,whichhasbeenpermitted to intervenein
the case,is representedby:
H.E. Mr. RicardoMangueObamaNYFubeM , inisterof StateforLaborand SocialSecurity,
asAgent andCounsel;
H.E. M.. Rubén MayeNsue Mangue, Minister of Justice and Religion, Vice-Presidentof the
NationalBoundaryCommission,
H.E. Mr. CristobalManana Ela Nchama, Ministerof Mines and Energy, Vice-Presidentof the
NationalBoundaryCommission,
Mr. Domingo h4ba Esono, National Director of the Equatorial Guinea National Petroleum
Company,Member ofthe NationalBoundaryCommission,
Mr.AntonioNzambiNlonga,Attorney-General,
asAdvisers;
Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor of Public International Law at the University of Paris
(Panthéon-Assas) anadt the European UniversityInstituteinFlorence,M.DavidA. Colson, membre du cabinet LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P.,
Washington,D.C., membredu barreau de 1'Etatde Californie et du barreau du district de
Columbia,
comme conseilsetavocats,
SirDerekBowett,
comme conseilprincipal,
M. DerekC. Smith, membre du cabinet LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P.,
Washington,D.C., membre du barreau du district de Columbiaet du barreau de 1'Etat
deVirginie,
comme conseil;
MmeJannetteE. Hasan, membre du cabinet LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P.,
Washington, D.C., membredu barreau du district de Columbia et du barreau detatde
Floride,
M. HervéBlatry,membreducabinetLeBoeuf,Lamb,Greene & MacRae,L.L.P., Paris,avocaàla
Cour,membredu barreaude Paris,
commeexpertsjuridiques;
M.CoalterG.Lathrop, SovereignGeographicInc.,Chape1Hill,CarolineduNord,
M.Alexander M. Tait, EquatorGraphics,SilverSpring,Maryland,
commeexpertstechniques.Mr. DavidA. Colson,LeBoeuf,Lamb, Greene & MacRae,L.L.P., Washington,D.C., member of
theCaliforniaStateBar andDistrictofColumbiaBar,
asCounselandAdvocates;
SirDerekBowett,
asSeniorCounsel;
Mr. DerekC. Smith,LeBoeuf,Lamb,Greene & MacRae,L.L.P.,Washington,D.C.,memberofthe
Districtof ColumbiaBarndVirginia State Bar,
asCounsel;
Ms JannetteE.Hasan,LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae,L.L.P., Washington,D.C.,member of
theDistrictofColumbiaBarand FloridaStateBar,
Mr. HervéBlatry,LeBoeuf,Lamb, Greene& MacRae,L.L.P.,Paris, Avocatàla Cour, member of
the ParisBar,
asLegalExperts;
Mr. CoalterG. Lathrop,SovereignGeographicInc.,Chape1Hill, NorthCarolina,
Mr. AlexanderM.Tait, EquatorGraphics,SilverSpring,Maryland,
asTechnicalExperts. Le PRESIDENT :Veuillezvous asseoir. La séance est ouverteetje donne la parole,aunom
de la Républiquefédérale du Nigeria,àM. Alastair MacDonald.
Mr. MACDONALD: Merci Monsieurleprésident.
LAND BOUNDARY
1.MI-P. resident, distinguished Membersof the Court,it is a great honourfor me to address
you for the first time, on behalf of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. As a land surveyor of long
experience, much of which comes fiom several years spent making maps in Afiican territories,
including the then United Nations Trust Territory of Southem Cameroons, 1 approach the
presentationofthis part ofNigeria's casewitha particularnterestand enthusiasm.
2. My task this morning is twofold. First, 1 will explain to the Court three examples of
defective boundarydelimitationarisingfrom the wording ofthe boundary instruments. Nigeriahas
chosen these examples to show the Court that there are complex geographicalissues involved,
which clearly needresolution before demarcationcan proceed.
3. Secondly, 1shalltake the Courtthroughthree examplesof seriousmisinterpretationofthe
same boundary instruments by Cameroon. My purpose here is to show that Cameroon, whilst
vigorously pleadingthat the original boundary instruments shouldbe the soledeteminants of the
boundary, has itself deviated fiom them to a significant extent, and withseriousconsequencesfor
the locationofthe boundary.
4. Cameroon in effect is seeking to obtain a declaration fiom this Court that the 1931
Thomson-Marchand Deciaration and the 1946 Order in Council, on their own, provide a
satisfactorydelimitationof the boundary inthose parts to which they apply. But these instruments
were prepareda longtimeago, when there wasa very limitedunderstandingofthe terrain. Forthe
Court simplyto endorsethem in the abstractwould be, 1submit, completelyunsatisfactory. There
are disputes about the interpretationof the relevant instruments. These involve problems of the
meaning of the instrumentsand their applicationon the ground. They are significant in terms of
the areas involved and the number of people who live there. They will not be resolved by the
Parties. Unless they are resolved by the Court, the boundary will not be specified definitively.
Indeed, intheseareas, itwill not be specified atall. 5. Mr. President, 1 shall make considerable use of maps and contemporary cartographie
technology this morning. As the Court will be aware, the use of digital mapping displayed by
computer is commonplacein a wide varietyof applicationsin today7sworld. This moming, 1will
be displaying compositesmerged from Nigerian andCarneroonianmap sources so that 1can give
the Court a clearerpicture ofthe relevant borderarea.1will projectextractsof these compositesat
an enlarged scale so that the Court will find my arguments easier to follow. 1 will also display
them in some cases in a three-dimensional format thatwill help to clarie the issues. The source
material for al1my graphics are the topographiemaps already submitted tothe Court inNigeria's
written pleadings.
Examplesofdefectivedelimitation
The "incorrectwatershed"
6.Mr. President,distinguishedMembersofthe Court, myfirst case of defective delimitation
cornes fromthe northem part of the boundary, locatedon the map on screen and at tab50 of the
judges' folder. It arises fromArticles 24 and25 of the 1931 Declaration, thetext of which is also
now on screenandat tab 50.
7. The challenge facinganyone interpretingthis part of the Declaration is how to applythe
instructioncontainedin Article 25-and underlinedinred onthe text- to adhereto the incorrect
line of the watershed shown on Moisel's map. Counsel for ~ameroon', suggested that decisions
such as this in the text were merely "unfort~nate'~and could be cured by a demarcation team.
Mr. President, that is certainly not the case. To show why, may 1 take the Court through the
complexitiesof this part of the 1931Declaration?
8. Moisel7smap is now on the screenand at tab 51. This German map series of Kamerun
was produced in various editions between 1908 and 1913 and the later editions were used to
illustrate the Milner-Simon Declaration of 1919. The Court will readily see that Moisel's
understanding of the topography of the area between Humsiki and Burha, in the vicinity of Gili,
was extremely limited. Thislack of understandingis even more obvious if we comparehis map
with this modem composite - now on screen and also at tab 51 - taken from Nigerian and
'CR20020, p. 57,para.25(Khan).Cameroon rnapsourcesat a scaleof 1:50,000. Bothrnapseries were prepared from detailed aerial
photographythat gave a clear viewof the completetopography
9. Nigeria submits that the proper and logicalway in which to interpret the boundary,from
the referenceto Moisel'sincorrectwatershedin Article25, is as follows:
(a) first,establishthe causeofthe error inMoisel'smap;
(b) second,definethe extentof its effectonthe lineofthe watershed;
(c) third, transpose Moisel's incorrect line for this part of the watershed to the modem map,
taking into accountthe differencein projectionsandthe relativeaccuracies;
(4 finally, use the transposed line to interpret the intentions behind the ciraftingof the 1931
Declaration.
10.1 will then go on to compare this linewiththe line submittedto the Courtby Cameroon
onthe maps in its ~e~lg.
11. The error in Moisel's rnap can be easily detected by a comparison of the rivers on his
rnap with those on the modem 1:50,000maps of the area produced by the British Directorate of
OverseasSuneys in 1969andbythe FrenchInstitutGéographiquN e ationalin 1965.
12. Looking again at Moisel's map, at tab 52, we can see that he took the river whose
tributariesrise inthe high land south of Humsikiand whichhe calledWaldocho,ranit southwards
to the u,est of Schua and Gili and then, before reachingBurha, turned it to the east to join the
catchmentof the Benue River.
l The copyof the 1913edition displayedhere isof the rnapsigned by ViscountMilner and
Mr. Simon and anached to the 1919 Declaration. The boundary defined by this instrument is
represented h' a green line and, in this area, is describedthus:"thence a line south-westwardsto
the watershed betweenthe basin of the Yedseramon the west andthe basins of the Mudukwa and
of the Benue on the east; thence this watershedto Mount ~ulikia"~. Thus the green line can be
taken as a contemporaneousinterpretation ofthe watershed on Moisel's rnap- and one that was
available to the draftsmen ofthe 1931 Declaration,when they inserted the instruction to remain
withthat watershed,even thoughthey knewbythenthat it was incorrect.
2~eplyof Cameroon,Vol. II,maps7 and8
'~ilner-simon Declaration,Art.1,para. 7. 14. Inorderto facilitatea comparisonbetweenMoisel'smap and its modem counterpart,we
now take the alignments of his Waldocho river and the green line and transposethem to the
composite of modem Nigerianand Carneroon1:50,000maps,now on screen and at tab 52. We
have allowed for the differences in projectionof the two maps by adjusting these alignrnents
slightly sothat the positionsof Burhaand Humsikicoincide.If we examine thereal courseof the
river whose headwaters start near Humsiki,we can see that, as with Moisel, it flows south past
Schua. However,it then tums to the west nearGili and flows intoNigeria, whereit is calledthe
Diwu.
15.This riveris part ofthedrainagesystem, nowbeingdisplayedon screen, which runsinto
the Yedseram Riverflowingnorthto Lake Chad. The catchmentareadrainingfust to the eastand
then to the south consists of these strearns,now displayedon screen, whose waters run into the
Mayo Kébiand eventually reach the Atlantic Ocean. The true watershed between the two
catchmentsruns alongthis orangeline, nowdisplayedon screen. It lies much fürtherto the east
than the linedepictedon Moisel'smap. Thecompletedrainagepatterncan be seenattab 52.
16.Thus, Moisel7sbelief that the Waldocho headwaterswere part of the catchment ofthe
Kébiflowingto the AtlanticOcean,ratherthanpartofthecatchmentofthe Yedseram flowinginto
Lake Chad,isthe causeof hismistakendepictionof thewatershed. Itis nownecessaryto establish
the extentofthis incorrectline.
17.Returningto Moisel'smap,attab 53,it is nowpossibleto displaythe truewatershedthat
would have resulted if Moisel's WaldochoRiver had correctly followed across into theDiwu,
flowingWestintoNigeria. Theresulting,andcorrect,watershedwouldhave beenthe orange line,
now displayedonthe screen,andrunningupto 12kmtotheeast of the greenline. The Courtwill
now see that the "incorrect line of the watershed"startsat a point a little to the north-eastof
Humsiki and followsthe green line southwardsas far as a point about 5 km north-north-eastof
Burha whereit meetsup with theorangeline.
18.Only partof this incorrectboundaryis incorporatedin the 1931Declaration,however.
Article24 definesthe boundaryup to the pointwhere it "crossesMount Kuli". Asthe Courtwill
see, at thetop of the map,this sectionis shown,s preciselyas is possible onMoisel'smap,by a
red line. 19.It is fiom Mount Kuli, southwards tothe point north of Burha, that Article25 and its
reference to the incorrect line of the watershed apply. Thus,that part of the incorrect watershed,
which needsto be transposedfiom Moisel'smapont0 modernmapping,is the remaining sectionof
the green linenow flashingon the screen.
20. To transposethe "incorrect line" fiom Moisel's mapto the modem map - which is also
at tab 53- is not difficult using computer techniques. First, we identi6 the endpoints of the
incorrect watershed on the modem mapping. At the northem end, the prominent Hossere Kilda,
arrowed inthe top part ofthe screen,is the modemname for Mount Kuli. At the southemend,we
can simplytake the point,now arrowed,that satisfiesthe tworequirementsthat 1established earlier
on Moisel'smap. It must lie on the true watershed,the orangeline, and it must beat a distance of
about 5 kmfiom Burha.
21.Wethen takethe incorrectsectionfiomMoisel's mapand move it ont0the modem map.
Because of the discrepancies causedby projection differences, itwill not fit preciselybetweenthe
cornrnonendpoints that we have identified. We achieve a fit by adjusting the length of the line
slightly. Andthis is acommon cartographieadjustmentprocess.
22.We now haveas good a transpositionofMoisel's incorrectlineof the watershedont0the
modem mapas it is possibleto get. It does, however, representa quite arbitrary lineand would be
difficultto set out onthe ground.
23. The line runs across the grainof the country in complexcurves and there is no evidence
that it hasever been setout on the groundor explainedto the localpopulations. Furthermore,there
exists a procès-verbal4that goes into greater and more helpful detail than the eventual
Thomson-MarchandDeclaration andsuggeststhatthe boundaryshouldfollow the centre of a track
running fi-omMuti towards Burha but passing 2 km to the west of the latter. From this, it is
reasonableto suggest that the draftsmenwere aiming for a line that ran roughly in a straight line
fi-omMount Kulito thevicinity of Burha.
24. A series of graphics on screen and at tab 54 now provide a closer view. Between
HossereKilda and a small hi11just to the north-north-westof Muti, the local watershedappearsto
4~ejoindofNigeria,Ann.NR 152.havebeenacceptedby bothPartiesastheboundaryanddoesindeedapproximateto the directionto
Burha. This is now shown by a red line. The locationof the Muti-Burha trackis now no longer
clearbut it is possibleto producean alignrnentrunningcloseto theline from Mutito Burhaandto
the incorrectline ofthe watershed,by usingthe following hi11features.
25. From thesmall hi11north-north-west ofMuti,the incorrectline is best interpretedby a
line runningto the spot height of 998m, and to another spot height of 915m, both in the
Hossere Goulever,and thentothe smallhi11 of Hossere Paliroum.
26. Now the line runs to the unnarnedhill, referredto as HillA in Nigeria's ~ejoinder~,
before finally reaching the southem endpoint of the "incorrectline" on a small hi11about 5 km
northof Burha.
27. From this point, the boundarycontinues southwards alongthe tme watershed leaving
Burhato Cameroonand Madaguvato Nigeria, as requiredby the 1931Declaration. And thence
southwardsalongthe true watershedtowardsGandira,whichfalls alittlewayoffthe bottomof this
map 6.
28. Mr. President,thishasbeen a complex presentationbut it has beennecessaryto go into
this detail in order to show the Court the dangers of relying solely on theterms of the 1931
Declaration and of accepting Cameroon'scasual rejection of theseriousness of this and other
defective situations.
29. Nigeria submits that Article25 needs carefil considerationand can only be properly
interpretedat the delimitation stage- a task which is well outsidethe scope of a demarcation
commission. Nigeriafurthersubmitsthatthe logicalapproachthat 1have describedfullyreflects
theintentionbehindArticle 25ina way thatno other approachwoulddo.
30. By contrast, Cameroon'sinterpretation,as evidencedby the maps submitted withits
~e~l~~is , quiteillogical,followingfor themostpart aseriesof strearnsinsideNigeria. Inno sense
can this be taken as representingthe line of a watershed, incorrector othenvise, as required by
Article25. Thenextseriesofgraphicsonscreenandattab 55showthe Cameroon line,whichfirst
'P. 339, para.7.54.
6~ejoinderofNigeria,pp.373-375, paras.7.137-7.144.
'~tlas, maps7and8.followsNigeria'slinefor 9 km southwards from HossereKilda. Inthe vicinity of Muti, however,
it then movesto thewest of Moisel'sincorrectwatershedto follow aseries of streamssome4 km
insideNigeria. It passessome4km to the west ofBurhaand followsyet anotherstreamup ont0
the mainwatershedinthe vicinity ofBana Hill.
31.From the vicinity ofMuti,andto beyondMadaguva, no partof Cameroon's linecan be
remotely justified by the 1931Declaration. Nigeriasubmits that, by contrast, there is a strong
logical and cartographicargument in support of its own line and that this line fully meets the
requirementsof the 1931Declaration.
32. Nigeria therefore requests the Court to endorseNigeria's suggested interpretation of
Article25as set outinspecificdetailin its~ejoinder'.
ItangHill(Mount Kombon)
33.Mr. President, distinguishedMembersof the Court,1turnnowto my secondexampleof
defective delimitation inherent in the1931Declaration. This concerns the area in which the
1931Declarationandthe 1946 Order in Councilmeet,which is locatedon the map on screen and
at tab 56. The 1931Declaration definesthe boundaryas it runs fromthe north-eastto the meeting
point whereasthe 1946Order bringsthe boundaryfromthe west. The relevantparts of the texts
are Articles60 and61 ofthe 1931Declarationand arenowon the screenand also attab 56.
34.The Court willsee thatArticle60 containsa lotof informationthat willhelp to identifL
both the"fairly prominent,pointedpeak" and the locationof the cairnitself. Nigeria hasput this
informationto goodusein whatisto follow.
35. Before 1go on, Mr.President, willyou allow me to remind the Court of counsel for
Cameroon'sdismissalofthis exampleas of "truly minor~i~nificance"~N . igeriacannotaccepthis
lackadaisical approachfor two reasons. For one thing he has made an error of truly major
significancein displayingto the Court amapthat misplacesMount Kombonby some 18km. His
map'' is now on screenand at tab 57, and his positionfor Mount Komboncan be clearly seen in
red. However,MountKombon liesto the north-westof Songkolong,in the arrowedposition,and
'P.340, para.7.59.
'CR200212,p.70,paras.27,30 and31 (Shaw).
'?ab 39 of thejudges'folderfor19 Feb.2002.not to the north-east as he would have it. This can be confirmed by referring to the maps in
Cameroon's own~epl~". ProfessorShawgoesonto suggestthat thetwoboundary instruments,to
which 1have referred, "providesufficientguidance for ademarcationarrangement tobe put into
placethat would permit identificationof the 'prominent peak'in question". Mr.President, that
surelycannotbe the caseifthey leadhimto a positionthat is 18km in error! Thisisjust another
exarnpleof the complete lack of appreciationby Cameroon of what the boundary instruments
actuallymean.
36. But more than that- counsel for Carneroonis wrong in his logic as well as in his
geography. MountKombonand itsrelationto the mainwatershedis a complexandconfusingone,
as1will nowdemonstratetothe Court.
37. 1will begin by illustratingthe texts of Articles60 and 61avertical viewof the area,
nowon screenand at tab 58. Article60 bringsthe boundaryfrom the north-east alongthe main
watershed, betweenthe Benuecatchment in Nigeria andthe Mbam catchment in Cameroon. It
runsalong thetop of the Mambilla Escarpmentto a pointnear the villageof Tamnyar. Fromthis
point,the Articlebecomesdefective,and1shalldiscussthis later.
38. Article61 continueswhat has now becomethe obsoleteAnglo-French boundarydown
the escarpmentfollowingthe watershed - nowthat betweenthe Malamandthe M'fiRivers - on
which the cairn, referred to in Article60, is situated. The orange line shows its course. Its
descriptionends at the cairn itself, sited under the highest peak of Hosere Nangban, which is
arrowed.
39. Nigeria has alreadyestablished1that this part of the 1931 boundarywas delimited by
officers travelling alongthe roads- now marked by arrows - that ran along the base of the
Mambilla Escarpment,ratherthan on foot along the top. It is obviousthat the comfortablebut
distantview that this low-levelroute provided must inevitably haveled to uncertaintyat times.
Nigeria submitsthat the choiceof the"fairly prominent,pointedpeak" asa point onthe watershed
wasthe resultof observationsfrom the plainswithoutthebenefitof on-the-spot inspection.
40. Theresult wasa defective delimitation whic1nowproposetodealwithasfollows:
"vol. II,map 18.
"~ejoinder ofNigeria, pp.355-356,para.7.90.(a) first, 1shallestablishtheidentityof the"fairlyprominent, pointedpeak";
(b) second, 1 shall show that this peak does not lie on the main watershed as required by
Article 60, which as a resultis defective;
(c) finally, 1will suggest how the text should be interpreted in order to establish a bounday in
line with the intentionofthe draftsmen.
41.1 shallthen considerthe effectthatthis defective delimitationhas onthejunction with the
sectionof boundarydelimitedbythe 1946OrderinCouncil.
42. A seriesof graphicsto illustratemyargumentsis at tab 59.
43. The detailin Article60 is morethan sufficientto identiQthe prominent peakin question,
by observation from the site of the cairn. The cairnitself lies on the now obsolete international
boundary between the old British and French Cameroons and is now well inside Cameroon.
Nigerian off~cialshave thus not been ableto visit it nor to view the boundary fiom that point.
Nigeria has alreadyexplainedhow it identifiedthe probable locationofthe cairn13and itis possible
to produce a view of the escarpmentfiom this location,using existing mapping. Here it is. The
direction of trueorth is indicated.
44. The magneticbearingof 17"givenin Article 60can be correctedtotrue bearingby using
the mapetic variationof 1931,which was9" W. Thismeansthatthe true bearingof the prominent
peak from the cairn was then, and still is,E." It is a simple procedure on the conventionalmap
itselftodraw thebearing of 8"and to determinewhich hi11is onthat bearing. This revealsthat the
bearing passe, through this hill, which is called Itang by the local people but has been named
Kombongon map 18in Cameroon'sown ~e~l~'~.One can seewhy, when faced withthis view of
the escarpmcnt. the officials charged with producingthe text for the 1931Declaration, described
thishiIlas a "fairlyprominent, pointedpeak" and indeedit is the hi11most suitedto this description
inthe area concemed.
45. It can also be seenthat it is very likelythat they would have assumedthat this peak lay
onthe main watershedand sodraftedArticle 60asthey did. Again,they wouldhave assumedthat,
fiom the peak, the main watershed followed the orange line along the edge of the escarpment
I3~ejoindofNigeria,p.357,para.7.93.
I4vol.II,map18.before turningdown the ridge, which formedthe watershed betweenthe Malam and the M'fi t,
reach the cairnthey had built at the foot of Hossere Nangban. This assumptionled to the drafting
of Article 61.
46. Unfortunatelyfor the officiais, boththe stream tothe east of the hi11andthat to the West
run well back into the Mambilla Plateau, so that Itang Hill is not on the main Benue-Mbam
watershed referred to in Article 60, but on a short local watershed between twostrearnsdraining
into the Mbam. As, withthe aid of the graphics,we rise furtherup andnow lookdownon the area
from above,this becomes even clearer. The eastern streamhas a complex pattern: some of the
initial tributariesn north fiom the edge of the escarpmentbeforejoining together and tuming to
nin south overthat edge. If the boundary is to remain on the Benue-Mbam watershedandpass
through ItangHill - two requirementsof Articles 60and 61 - it can only do so if it arrives and
departs by the same route, shown in orange. This is clearly a nonsensical result and the
delimitation is thus defective. There are several possible ways of dealing with the problem and
Nigeria argues that the choice of solution is one that must be made at delimitation and not at
demarcation.
47. Nigeria believesthat the correctway to overcomethe problem is to applythe principle
adopted in the Argentine-ChiEeFrontier case1'. Thus the boundaq should follow the main
watershedto a point where it beginsto moveaway fiom the expresslystipulatedboundarypeakof
Itang Hill andthen, fiomthat point, it shouldfollowa straightlineto ItangHill.
48. From Itang, 1 have already shown that the boundary would follow the edge of the
escarpment to the Malam/MYfiwatershed, stipulated by Article 61, and then continue on that
watershed downthe escarpment - alongthe orange line. It is now timeto discuss where,onthis
line, thejunctionwiththe boundarydefinedbythe 1946 Orderin Councillies.
49. Article 60 refers to a "fairly prominent, pointedak" which Nigeria submits is to be
interpreted as Itang Hill. The 1946Order in Council, which comes, at this point, fiom the west,
ends its delimitationthus: "thence on a true bearing of 100"for three and five-sixths miles along
the crest ofthemountainsto the prominentpeakwhich marksthe Franco-Britishfrontier".
arbitration).ntine-ChileFrontier Dispute (1966), ILR, Vol. 38, p. 10 (commonly referredLa Palena 50. This impliesthat the connection lies on the summit of a prominent, but not necessarily
pointed, peak. Before itreaches this peak, the boundary passesalong a "crest of the mountains".
Nigeria submits that this is the crest,now indicatedwith a secondorange line on the screen, and
that,after passing along the crest, the boundary definedby the 1946Order meets that defined by
the 1931Declarationat the summit of Tonn Hill, now indicated. This summit isprominent,ison
the Franco-British frontier,and isarrivedat along"the crest of the mountains". Thus,the use of
the phrase "prominent peak" in the 1946Order clearly leads us to this hill, TOM, as thejunction
point betweenthetwoboundary instruments.
51. Retuming to a vertical view,the boundary defined by the 1931Declarationruns along
the red linefiom ItangHill to Tonn andthat is where1shall haltmy discussion of the boundary -
at the pointwhere the relevance of the 1931Declarationends andthe 1946Ordertakesover. 1will
explainhow it continuesto the Westinmythird example.
52. Mr. President, 1 have demonstrated to the Court that Articles 60 and 61 contain a
defective delimitation for this part of the boundary. It is not an example of "trulyminor
significance" as Professor Shaw asserted. Neither is it an issuethat can be left to a demarcation
commission, as Mr.Khan wanted. It is clearly a problem of delimitationwhich needs resolution
beforehand and the interpretation of the text, whichNigeria has submitted, resolvesit in the best
way possible and inaccordancewith internationallaw. Nigeriathereforeasks the Courtto endorse
this suggestedinterpretation,as setoutin greaterdetailin its ~ejoinder".
Lipand Yang
53. Mr. President, distinguished Membersof the Court, for my third example of defective
delimitation,1 shallmoveto the areaof Lip and Yang,a little wayto the Westof Itang Hill,where
the 1946Order in Councilapplies. Therelevanttext is attab 60.
54. At first sight, the text contains a mass of data that must surely define the boundary
without any doubt. Unfortunately,it isimpossibleto find the rightsequenceof groundfeaturesthat
fital1the constraints. This has produceda defective delimitation which1will deal withas follows:
(a) first, 1shall showhowthe 1946Orderdoesnotmatchthe topography;
I6p.359,para.7.98.(ZZ) second,1shall indicatewhich partof the Orderis defective;
(c) thirdly, 1 will explain the impact of a 1941Agreement on the Inter-Regional Boundary,
supervizedby a colonialofficial,Dr. Jeffreys;
(4 finally, 1 will show how the Order in Council line will, as a result, connect to the
1931Declarationline.
55.1 willthen go onto compareNigeria's linewith that submittedto theCourtby Cameroon
in itse~l~'~.
56.A seriesof graphicsattab 61illustratesmyarguments.
57. On the left of the vertical view on screen,the Court will see the boundary line coming
southwards - in red- downthe MburiRiver as far as a confluencewherethe boundarywill tum
to the east; and this point is now arrowed. Althoughthe 1946Order refers only to the Mburi
River, thereare other localnames forthis boundary river. Up to this point, it is also known as the
Mantu or Manton. The branch that now carries the boundq to the east is also known as the
Maven. BothParties agreeon the locationof the boundaryupto the pointon the Mburi or Maven
that is now arrowed. It is fiom here to the "crest of the mountains" in the west that difficulties
arise.
58. The mode1on the screen now moves in - the enlargedview is also at tab 61 - to the
area immediatelyto the north of Yang, which is in Cameroon. The relevant headwaters of the
Mburi Riverare emphasizedin yellow. The courseof the Kumbo-Banyoroad is also shown. The
Court will see that the highlighted section of river contains the only headwater crossed by the
Kumbo-Banyoroad in thevicinityof Yang.
59.1 will now takethe court through the topographicinconsistenciesin that part of the text
that is underlinedin red intab 60. Firstly,the Order requiresthat the Kumbo-Banyoroad crosses
the Mburi Riverat Yang (themodern name forNyan)but noneof the headwatersreachthat village
sothe requirement cannotbe met. The road does cross the Mburi at the pointarrowed, 1% miles
north of Yang. Accepting this apparently invalid position as the crossing point so that the
discussion may proceed, we have two Streamjunction candidates that are now emphasized in
I7v0lII,map18.yellow. The 1946 Order requires that the junction is 1 mile north of the road crossing. The
northern junction only mile to the north of the crossing and the stream goes in the wrong
directionand is too short. It follows avalleyon a true bearing of 133" not 120°,for a distance of
78 milenot 1 '/2miles. And atthe head ofthis valley,one cannotbe said to be "near" the sourceof
the Mfi. That is ll/z miles away across the valley of another tributary of the Mburi River.
However,one iscloseto the Kumbo-Banyoroad.
60. The secondstream candidateis immediatelyto the southof the roadcrossing,not 1mile
to the north, andis emphasized in yellow. This streamalso goesin the wrongdirection and is too
long. Itfollows avalley on anaverage truebearingof 133"ratherthan 120°,the same as inthe first
case, and for a distance of 2% miles not 11/2miles. At the head of this valley, however, one is
closerto the sourceof the Mfi. However,oneis 1 l/2miles fromtheKumbo-Banyo road.
61. Neither Streamcan be said to match the requirementsof the Order in their entirety and
the Orderis thereforedefectiveinthis locality.
62. However,Nigeria has already explainedto the court'' that a more recent document has
cometo light referring to a meetingheld atYang on 13August 1953at whichprovincial officiais
and representativesof the localcommunitieswere present.
63. The record of the meeting, attendedby the Touring Officer SouthernArea, Adamawa
Division,in the Northern Cameroons,refersto an enquiryheld in 1941by Dr.Jeffreys,then Senior
District Officer at Bamenda in the Southern Cameroons, as a result of which he had "fixed the
boundary, recognized by Government between the two provinces" (i.e., between Northern and
Southern Cameroons, a boundarywhich is now the internationalboundary between Nigeria and
Carneroon).
64.N; copiesofthe Ordermade byDr. Jeffreyswere thenavailable,but
"fortunately, alarge cairnof Stonesonthe mainBang-Yangpath was accepted byboth
sides as oneof the points inthis boundary, thearea in disputelying to the west of this
cairn betweenthe path andthe RiverManton".
65. The 1941meeting had reached an agreement on a line fiom Yang running first to the
Westandthen northto the Manton(i.e. theMburi)River, intheseterms:
I8~ejoinderofNigeria,p.363,para.7.107,andAnNR 171. "After much discussion both sides agreed that the Jeffreys Boundary ran as
follows:
'Fromthe Cairnon the Bang-Yang pathin a westerlydirectionfor
about 600yards to a groupof eighttrees. Fromthese trees in a northerly
direction for about 100yards to the head of the Mogog Stream.
Following the Mogog Stream to its junction with the Maven Stream.
Followingthe Maven Streamto theMantonRiver. "'
66.ProfessorShaw~ought'~ to devaluethe importanceof the 1941Jeffreysboundaryandthe
agreement confirmed at the meeting of 13August 1953. Yet Cameroon's own evidence2'
apparently confirmsthat the "réalitésur lteerrain"in this part of the boundary is dictated by "le
tracé desfrontièred sepuis1941etunprocès-verbal deréunion du 13août 1953réglantle Iitigede
limitesde terrainentreles communautév sillageoisesde Yanget de Bang". The relevantreference
appears inthe transcript.
67.This "tracé desfrontières"enablesthe boundaryto be followedfromthe site of the cairn
north of Yang,referredto in the Jeffreys agreement-and now shownby a greentriangle- asfar
as the Manton(or Mburi)River. Thesite of the cairn, thoughnow markedby a single large stone,
has been confirmed by means of interviews on the ground and its location fits the Jeffreys
description. From thesite of the cairn,the lin- shownon screen inred - runswesterly tosome
trees,then northerlytothe head ofthe Mogog stream,then down that streamto its confluencewith
the Ma\ enand finallyintothe MantonRiver.
68 Lcwkinpat the wider picture,we nowhave the gap betweenthe cairn atYang and Tonn
Hill toconsider. Therelevantpart ofthe descriptioninthe 1946Orderreads as follows:
'7hcric.along thisunnamedstrearnon a generaltrue bearing of 120"for oneand a half
milchto its source at a pointon the new Kumbo-Banyo road,near the source of the
Riter hlfi; thenceon a true bearing of 100"for three and five-sixthsmiles along the
crestof the mountainsto theprominentpeakwhich marksthe Franco-British frontier".
69.1have alreadyshown that the first part of this description is defective. This also casts
doubt on thevalidity ofthe bearingto and the distance alongthe crestofthe mountainsthat is once
again identifiedby the orange lineused in my previous exarnple. Nevertheless,the "crest of the
mountains" remains a valid descriptionof the feature alongwhich the boundarymust travel forits
final stagestoTonn Hill.
19C~200212,p.67,para.20.
20~emorialof Cameroon,Ann.MC258,p.2153. 70. Thus, the boundary - in red- runningwestwards from Tonn Hill, followsthe orange
lineas far asthe point now arrowed. This leaves agap of about5.5 km betweenthe cairn at Yang
andthe crest of the mountains. The two points both lie on themain watershed betweenthe Benue
catchmentinNigeria andthe Mbam catchmentin CameroonandNigeria submitsthat the intention
of the draftsmenof the 1946Order wasto usethiswatershed todivide the twoRegionsof the Trust
Temtory alongthe routeofthe red linethat nowjoins the cairnto the crest.
71. The line that 1 have indicated is the best possible interpretation of the various, and
frequentlyconflicting, requirementsof the 1946Order in Council and of the intentions underlying
it, inthelightof the Jeffreys agreement.
72. By contrast, Cameroon's line - in blue- inexplicably followsthe Maven River
upstreamto the point wherethat riverturnsto the south. Fromthis point, itcontinuesupthe stream
that flows past Bang, a Nigerian villagewith some local government offices, which Carneroon
claims to be in itsown temtoxy. A little way beyond Bang, itswitches to a ridge, used by the
Kumbo-Banyo road, and follows this until it reaches the main watershed at a low col, now
indicated on the screen. From here, it continues along the main watershed andnever comes
anywhere nearany peak,pointed, prominentor otherwise. And it is of coursea longway fromthe
M'fi catchment. In no waycan it be saidto be followinganycrest of any mountains,nor do any of
the streams it uses conform to the bearings and distances given in the Order in Council. This
interpretationis fundamentally incorrect, impossibleto understand and should be rejected by the
Court.
73. This is a seriousviolation which could affect the lives and securityof a large farming
communityliving on intensively cultivated land. In all, some 33 km2of Nigerian landare claimed
byCameroon.
74. Nigeria therefore submits that the Court should endorsethe line1have indicatedas the
best interpretation of the defective delimitationbetweenthe Maven (Mburi)River and Tonn Hill:
that interpretationis setoutbyNigeriain its ~ejoinde?'.
2'~.364,para.7.11. Cameroon's misrepresentationo sf the boundaryline
75.Mr.President, distinguished Members ofthe Court, 1now tum to three exampleswhere
Cameroon's claim line, presented to the Court on the maps submitted in its Reply, shows a
completedisregardfor the provisionsofthe boundary instruments eventhough Cameroonis asking
the Courtto rule thatthese arethe onlydocumentsthatdelimitthe boundary.
76. 1 would like to remindthe Court,before we go through these examples,that counselfor
Cameroonmade three pointsinhis oral pleadings:
(a) First:
"If it turned out that some depictions on Cameroon's maps were in
contradictionwith any ofthe treatyprovisions . ..Cameroonwill not hesitateto bring
itsmaps inaccordance withthe truestateof the lawas quicklyas possible."22
fi) Second: helaterdeclinedto commenton Nigeria's claimsof misrepresentationandthen said:
"Even if theseallegationswere correct,somethingwhich Cameroon strongly contests, .. ."23
(c) Finally:
"Nigeria'scartographicrepresentationofthe boundary line does not only givea
one-sided and highly disputable interpretation of certain stipulations of the
Thomson-MarchandDeclaration. In some instances it is even in clear contradiction
withthe expresswordingof the ~eclaration."~~
77.It wouldappearthat Carnerooniswillingto admitto mistakesbut deniesthat Nigeria has
discovered any. It goes further to claim that Nigeria's examples are one-sided and highly
disputable. My exampleswill showthe Courthow falsethe Cameroonclaims are.
78. The fust of my examples is chosento showthe sheer illogicalityof the Cameroon line.
The next involvesa very significantareaof land whereCameroon'sclaim is basedon the complete
rejection of clearly worded text. The thirdconcems a long sectionof boundary where the simple
term "watershed" has been wilfully misinterpreted. These are not areas where the relevant
boundaryinstrument is difficult to interpret. The instructions areclear and precise but Cameroon
has nevertheless deviatedfromthe proper line, by significantarnountsand in a mannerthat seems
entirelywithoutjustification.
2 2 ~200212,p.52,para. (Khan).
2 3 200212,p.56,para.2(Khan).
2 4 200212,p.59para.30(Khan).MaioSenche
79.My first exarnplecomesfrom theAlantika Mountainsinthe central partof the boundary,
as located onscreenand at tab 62. It does not involve verymuch land and it is in a remotearea.
Nevertheless,it isseriousbecauseit displayssucha brazendisregardforthe clear,unequivocaltext
of the 1931Declaration. The textofthe relevantArticle 35ison screenandattab 62.
80.Mr. President,the textunderlinedinred is surelyas clearan instructionto remainonthe
watershedasthere couldbe.
81.However, themap on screenand at tab 63 showsa comparison oftheNigerian claimline
with that of Cameroon. The Nigerian linein red followsthe intricacies ofthe watershed. By
contrast, the Cameroon line in blue cuts off a loop in the watershed by choosing to follow a
Nigerian stream down into the basin of the Maio Senche- shown in yellow- and then, by
anotherNigerianstream,back upontothe watershed.
82. Mr. President,Nigeria rejects Cameroon'ssuggestionthat this is "one-sided and highly
disputable". There can be no dispute over Nigeria's line. Rather, it is Cameroon's blatant
departurefrom the clearterrns of the 1931 Declarationthat is extremelydifficultto understand or
to forgive. It should be rejected outright by the Court in thenner requested by Nigeria in its
~ejoinde?'.
Bissaula - Tosso
83.Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court,my next examplecomesfromfurther
south along the boundary, in the vicinity of Bissaula, as located onscreen and at tab 64. The
relevantsectionofthe 1946Orderisalso nowon screenandattab 64.
84. At this point 1 must ask for the indulgence of the Court because 1wish to trace the
boundary in the opposite directionto that inwhich it is describedin the 1946Order, as it will be
mucheasierto presentmy argumentsin this direction. 1mustalso pointoutthat the mapping 1will
use will be displayedwith north atthe bottom. This producesa view in better sympathywiththe
directionoftravel.
"pp.381-382,para7.168. 85. On the map now on screen and at tab 65, let me identifi the featuresmentioned in the
Order in Council: Tosso Mountain,already referred toby my friend, Sir Arthur Watts, iswell to
the west. Kentu is an old settlement, shown on Moisel's map to the south of Bissaula, while
Bamenda is an administrativecentre well to the south in Cameroon. The so-called "road", now
highlightedinyellow on the screen,is a long-establishedwalkingroute usedbymyself in 1956, but
more usually by traders betweenthe highlandsof Cameroon andthe Nigerian low countryaround
Bissaulaand beyond. It is stillin use today. This river highlightedin blue is namedon Cameroon
mapsdepositedwiththe Court asthe Akbang,which flows intothe Donga.
86. The boundary runs southwards ffom the River Donga along the Akbang and then
branches off up this tributary- in red. Both Parties agree on the alignment as faras this point
where the tributary splits in two. From here, Nigeria'slin- in red- takesthe southern branch,
crosses the road at this point and then travels in a straight line towards Tosso Mountain. The
Cameroon line - in blue- crosses the road further to the north. 1will now move in closer to
showthe crossingpoints on the road inmore detail. My argumentscan also be followedona series
of graphicsattab 66.
87. 1 start at Bissaula and follow the road as it climbs up ont0 a ridge, which it follows
towards the south. We will now see - in blue- the boundaryalignment claimed by Cameroon.
It comes up the northern branchto its source,which is under the crest of a ridge 150m east of the
road. Cameroon's claimedlinethen followsthis ridgeto the point where it crossesthe road,before
headingoff in a straight linetowards Tosso Mountain.
88.It is very clear fiomthe mode1that Cameroon'sclaimed linedoes not, as it is requiredto
do by the 1946Order in Council,cross the road where the latter passes over a stream. In fact, the
crossingpoint isthe very opposite - highonthe crest ofa ridge. Again, it must berejected.
89.If we nowmove fùrthersouth,the Courtwill note that the road continues alongtheridge
withoutcrossinga stream. Nowwe see-in red -the lineclaimedby Nigeria. The Nigerianline
comesup the southen branch andcrossesthe road ata streamcrossing- highlightedin blue-as
it is requiredto do the pointis arrowed. The Court will notethat this is the only pointatwhich a
streamof any sort crossesthis road in this vicini9. Fromthis unique crossingpoint,the boundary
travels ina straightlinetowardsTossoMountain. 90.Mr. President,distinguishedMembersof the Court,this may at first sightseemto be one
of Cameroon7sless extensive deviationsfrom the clear languageof the 1946 Order. However, if
the Court examines this conventionalmap ofthe area, taken fromNigeria's ~ounter-~emorial~~,
now on screen, we can follow the description in the 1946 Order from Mount Tosso. The
Kentu-Bamenda road is highlit in yellow.The blue line runs from Mount Tossoto the crossing
point claimedby Cameroon whilstthe red lineruns to the point claimedby Nigeria. It is clearthat
a largetriangle of land,arnountingto about75km2,is indispute.
91. Nigeria once again rejects utterlythe accusation that this is a "one-sided and highly
disputable"interpretation. Nigeria'slinemeetsthe requirementsofthe 1946 Orderin everyrespect
and Nigeria requests the Court to rule that the correct position for the crossing point of the
Kentu-Bamendaroad isthat point wherethe one and onlystreamcrossesthe roadsome6 kmsouth
of the position claimedby Cameroon. Itfurther requeststhe Court to endorse the submissionset
out in itsejoindeI"~.
MandaraMountains
92. Finally, Mr. President, 1wish to consider the MandaraMountains, a long chain of high
ground in the northem part of the boundary,where the boundaryis defined by Articles20to 23 of
the 1931Declaration - and the relevant text is at ta67. The boundary runs for the most part
along the watershed of these mountainsfromNgossi in the north to Humsiki in the south. It is a
densely populated and cultivated area, farmed by people who are closely related across the
boundary.
93. The locationof the boundaryis therefore particularlyimportant and an understandingof
the term "watershed" is crucialto interpretingthe delimitation.would like to remindthe Court of
two widely accepted definitions of "watershed", both of which Nigeria accepts. The Oxford
EnglishDictionary gives this definition: "The line separatingthe waters flowing into different
river basins; a narrow elevated tract of groundbetween two drainage areas," while LeGrand
Laroussede la languefiançaise gives a similar meaning: "Ligne de partage des eaux, crêtp elus
26~tlas,Map66.
27~393,para.7.196.ou moinsélevée à la rencontre dedeux versants,qui constitue la limite séparantdeux bassins
hydrographiques. " Here, in the MandaraMountains,andindeed throughoutthis case,these arethe
interpretationsthat Nigeria hasplaced ontheword "watershed"wheneverit appears in a boundary
instrument.
94. Mr. President, why do 1 take time to explain to the Court the meaning of the word
"watershed", a term you are so familiar with? For this reason: after a challenge by ~i~eria~',
Cameroon in its Reply defended its line in the southernpartof these mountains - a line which
runs forthe greater part, half-waydown theNigerianescarpment- withthese words:
"[LIUligne de partage des eaux indiquée à l'article23 de la Déclaration
Thomson-Marchand peut êtreassimilée à une rupture de pente entre deux bassins
hydrographiquesetnonnécessairement àunelignetopographique.'"9
And withthese: "[Llescartes I.G.N. ne sontpas incorrectes etsonten touspoints conformesaux
dispositionsdesparagraphes23 à25 de la Déclaration ~homson-~archand.'"~
95. There is a clear dispute between the Partieson this point. It is not just a questionof
demarcation, that is, of locating a boundary description on the ground. It involves a point of
principle.
96. As 1 Say, for much of the length of the Mandara Mountains,the boundary follows a
watershed. A motorable road, constructed by Cameroon, also follows the watershed, with
occasionaldepartureswheretheterrain makesit impossibleto remainon it. In severalplaces,these
departures represent unauthorized and significant incursions into Nigerian territory. There are
several large villages on or near the watershed, mostlyestablished by Cameroon, and atone of
these, Turu,serious encroachmentshave beenmade intoNigeria.
97. There can be no doubt that Articles20 and21 provide an unarguable definition of a
watershedboundaryfromNgossiasfar asthehi11of Matakarn,whichis nowadaysknown asGilda.
98.Let me now illustratethe issues arisingon this section ofthe border. A series of graphics
at tab 68 illustrates my arguments. In this view on screen,Mr.President,you are lookingsouth;
28~ounter-~emoriaolfNigeria,p. 512,para.19.9.
29~.211,para4.116.
30~.212,para4.118.Nigeria appearson your right and Cameroononyour left. Westart at Ngossi with Humsiki shown
atthe southernend andwe will nowmove in closerto lookatthe Ngossiarea in moredetail.
99. Before going any further, let me explainto distinguished Membersof the Court what
they are seeing here. Nigeria's interpretationoftheboundary lineis thebrokenred lineand, for the
most part,it followsthe watershed. Carneroon'sinterpretationis the broken blue linethat, forlong
sections,follows a routewell belowthe watershed. The road,which runs along the watershed for
most of its length,is the double black line. Wherethe road encroachesont0Nigerianterritory,the
area of landbetweenroad and boundaryis shadedyellow. Thepurple area showswheresignificant
building developmenthas occurredacross the watershed intoNigerian territory at the Cameroon
village ofTuru. Other importantsettlements,which are situatedon the boundary, willbe marked
by a collectionof black squares. Major settlementnames have been addedto assistthe Courtto
follow progress.
100. Here at Ngossi, which is arrowed, there is a significant encroachment by the
Cameroonianroad intoNigerian territory. There isalso a Cameroon schoolsited near the road in
the yellow area. Cameroon's claim line, as evidencedby the maps submitted tothe Court in its
~e~l~~t~ a,kesan evenlessjustified course withinNigeria andbelowthewatershedas shown bythe
blue line. The Courtwill note thatthis line crosseseveral streams,whichare now arrowed,while
running 500mto the west of thewatershedandsomedistancebelow it.
101. As we run southwards towards Turu, the road keeps sufficiently closely to the
watershedto satis@Nigeria. However,the Cameroonboundq line continuesto run 500 m inside
Nigeria.
102. At Turu itself, there is serious encroachment. Four hundred metres before the
T-junction,the Cameroonianroad strays ont0 theNigerian sideof the watershedandremainsthere
through the settlementof Turu for a distance of 2.5 km. At its most intrusive,it is 500 m inside
Nigeria. The Cameroon boundary line continuesto run about 600 to 800m to the Westof the
watershedandsomeway below it.
31~ol.II,maps6 and7. 103. Turu is a major settlement,and there are many Carneroonbuildings, both government
and private, whichhave been built on Nigerian land. Several are even on the western sideof the
road, as can be seen in three photographsthat 1would now like to show the Court. They were
taken by telephoto lens by Nigerian officials from positions on the edge of the purple area and
looking eastwards. The first shows a general view of the settlement in which the track running
southwardsis clearlyvisible and al1the tin-roofeddwellingsare Cameroonianand on the Nigerian
sideofthe watershed. The secondshowsa Cameroonschool wellinsideNigeria,with thetwohills
in the middle grounddefiningthe watershed andthusthe boundary,while the third showsa large
Cameroon Catholic church, again, well inside Nigeria, with the two rocky hillocks behind it
definingthe watershedand thusthe boundary.
104. South ofthe Turu encroachment - andmay 1again remind the Court: Nigeriaon the
right, Carneroonon the lefi- the Carneroonmaps now bring the boundary back to its correct
position on the watershed, although there is a small incursion by the road into Nigerian territory
beforewe reach Gilda Hill.
105.From GildaHill, past Mabas and on to Wula,some uncertainty creeps in. The relevant
part of Article2of the 1931Declaration reads: "Thencerunningdue Westto srpoint to the south
of thevillage of Wisikwhere itturns tothe southona linerunningalong the watershed andpassing
byMabas on theFrenchside, ..."
106. Whilethis might suggestthatthe boundarycontinues along the watershed - shownin
orange- towards the Carneroon settlement ofMabas, there has been some adjustment to the
borderlocally. Boththe Cameroonmapand local informationfromNigerian sources agreethatthe
boundary turns south-west from Gilda Hill and follows the course of a strearn- highlit in
yellow - for about4 km beforereturningto the watershedas farasMabas.
107.BeyondMabas, the relevant partof Article22 says: "passing by Mabas on the French
side,after which it leaves Wula on the English siderunning southand bounded by cultivatedland
to theeast of the lineof the watershed".
108. This clearly impliesthat the boundarymovesaway fromthe watershed south ofMabas
andusesthe edgeof cultivated landinstead,leavingWulato Nigeria. The area concernedcan now
be seen on screen. Nigeria assertsthat the Cameroonline, shownin red, is nowadays accepted asthe boundaryas far as the T-junction some 12km south of Mabas. Cameroon,by contrast,takes
the boundary firstly along the watershed as far as a narrow c-l now arrowed - south-eastof
Wula Hanko and then by a mountainous route to Humunsi, now known as Roumzou. This line
completelyignoresthe requirementto be "boundedby cultivated land" anddoesnot leaveWulato
Nigeria.
109.The nextsection of the boundary,as far as Mogodé,is describedby Article 23: "Then
passing Humunsi on the French side the boundary lies between the mountains ofJe1and Kamale
[and]MogodéontheFrench sideand runningalong the watershed ..."
*
110.The T-junctionlieson the main watershedandthe Nigerian boundaryline now follows
that again past Humunsi on the Cameroon side and as far as Yele, with few differences with
Cameroon. Beyond Yele, the Cameroon claim line takes a big swing down the Nigerian
escarpment - particularly well illustrated at the arrow north of Mogodé. There can be no
justification for Cameroonplacing its line sofar beneaththe watershed, in complete disregard of
the phrase"runningalongthe watershed" inArticle 23.
111. Article 23 leaves Mogodéto Cameroon,but Cameroon makes an outrageous claim on
its maps by again swinging the boundary down the escarpmentto the west, reaching a maximum
distance of 2 km insideNigeria. The extentof this encroachmentcan be clearly seen at the point
now arrowed.
112.Continuing beyondMogodé - andmay 1onceagain remindthe Court: Cameroonon
the left,Nigeria onthe righ- there are minorincursionsby the Cameroonroad ont0 the Nigerian
side of the watershed in the vicinity of Kama Hill and Hosere Piouo: these are shown in yellow.
However, much more serious is the location ofthe Cameroon claim line, whichcontinuesto run
about halfway downthe Nigerian escarpment. Once again,this alignmentcannot in any way be
said to reflect the text of Article23 and, in particular, that phrase "running along the watershed".
The incursion is at its worst to the north of Humsiki, where, at the arrowed point, it crosses a
Nigerianvalley 250m in heightbelow thewatershed.
113.Mr. President, distinguishedMembersof the Court, fiom what youhavejust seen,you
will be able to understand thedegree of alarmthat Nigeria feels at the unjustified andaggressive
interpretationof the boundaryby Cameroon inthis sector and, in particular,at the gross violationstaking place at Turu, an issue that Cameroon has consistently ignored throughout these
proceedings. This whole area is heavily populatedand, once again, we are dealing with many
peoples' lives and their security. Nigeria requests the Court to endorse the interpretation of the
boundary that 1 have outlinedas the one that faithfully followsthe requirements ofArticles20 to
23of the 193 1 Declaration. It furtherrequests theCourtto endorsethe relevant submissionsset out
in itsejoinder~~ both inrespect ofthiswhole sectionand ofTum itself.
114. That is the last of myexamples for the Court this moming. 1have shown you three
examples of defective delimitation inthe existing boundary instruments. From what1have said
aboutNigeria's methods,the Court can see that Nigeria hasbrought a fair and logicalapproachto
aniving at the solutionsto these difficultproblemsof interpretation,an approachthat conformsto
the requirementsof internationallaw.
115. 1have also shown you three examples of cases where Cameroon, whilst encouraging
the Court toconsideronlythe original boundary instruments,has itself manifestly failedto observe
these instrumentsby significant amountsand over significantdistances.
116.1 must make it clear that theseare notthe only cases. There are other placeswhere the
delimitation of the boundary is defective or where Cameroon has completely ignored the
requirementsof the boundaryinstrumentson which it purportsto rely and that it so earnestlyseeks
to have the Court uphold without qualification. The full list of these places can be found in
Nigeria's ~ejoinde?~. There is no signthat Cameroon hasgiven any serious considerationto the
interpretation ofthe boundaryinstrumentsor eventhat it understandstheir limitations.
117. Mr.President, that completes my topographical tour - which would not have been
possible without the skilled help that 1 have received from Mr. RockyRimtti and
Mr.Bruce Daniel. May 1now invite you to give the floor to Sir Arthur Watts- unless, that is,
youwould considerthat thiswould bean opportunemomentforthe Courtto rise for a well-earned
break?
32~p.371-372,para.7.13andp.373,para.7.136.
33~p.321-322,para.7.7andp. 367,paras.7.122-7.123. The PRESIDENT: Thank youverymuch,Mr. Macdonald. La Courva suspendre pour une
dizainede minutes.
L'audience ess tuspenduede Il h20 à Il h30.
Le PRESIDENT : Veuillez vousasseoir. La séanceest reprise. 1now give the floor to
SirArthurWatts forthe Federal Republic ofNigeria.
Sir Arthur WATTS: Thankyou,Mr.President.
LAND BOUNDARY
1. Mr.Presidentand Members of the Court,the Courthas heard fiomMr. Macdonald and
myself about 12of the locationsalong the land boundarywherethere are delimitationproblems.
Those twelve are about half of the total, and theyare generallyrepresentativeof the problem
locations whichNigeria identified in its Rejoinder. The others are adequately explainedin
Nigeria's writtenpleadings.
2. Cameroon's responseto the variousproblemlocations,suchas it is,is interesting. Onthe
onehand they areso serious,so it is said,that they underminethe whole boundary; on the other
hand many of themare, for anotherof Carneroon'scounsel"reallyof tmly minor ~i~nificance"~~.
Mr.PresidentandMembersofthe Court,"minor" isa strangewordto use inthis context. Counsel
for Cameroonappliedit expresslyto what hereferredto as the MountKombon problem:counsel
clearly did not know what he was referringto. Mr.Macdonald's presentationthis morninghas
shownthat, whateverthe Mount Kombon problem mightbeyit is not"minor". And whataboutal1
the other areas? As the Courthas seen,significantareasof landare affectedby these delimitation
difficulties. Peopl- quite large numbersof them - live and work in those areas: boundary
decisionswhichaffect theirlivesare alsofar fiom "minoryy.Nigeriahopesthatthe Court will hear
nomoreof thesedismissiveandpatronizingCameroonianattitudes.
3. There isanother aspectto Cameroon's responseto the particularareasraisedbyNigeria.
In respect oftwoof them, Cameroon has expressly accepted thatthere canbe departuresfiom the
Thomson-Marchand Declarationand the 1946Orderin Council. In relationto boundary pillar 64,
3 4 ~2002f2p.70,para27(Shaw).counsel forCamerooninterms accepted Nigeria's suggested interpretation of what must havebeen
intendedby the drafters of the 1946Order in Council: counselsaid "Cameroon is quite happyto
accept here Nigeria'sinterpretati~n"~~.So there is one clear matter which needtrouble the Court
no more, otherwisethanto record andconfirmthe Parties' agreementreached inthese proceedings.
4. The other area is the mouth of the Ebedji. The substance of Cameroon's explanations
about that area were dealt with yesterday. What is important here is that Cameroon has been
perfectly happy to see that part of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration given an appropriate
interpretation. Nowhere in the record is there any suggestion that Cameroon objected to the
Thomson-Marchand Declarationbeing interpreted. Indeed, Cameroon did notjust want the text
interpreted, but actually put forward an amendment which Carneroonhas admitted in these
proceedingsdeparts fromthe terms of the Declaration: Carneroonadmitsthat its supposedmouth
of the River Ebedji is notlocated wherethere is any possiblemouth of a river36,even thoughthe
terms of theDeclaration requirethe boundaryto be atthe"mouth" of the Ebedji.
5. So. when it suits Cameroon, both the boundary instruments affectedby delimitation
defects ma!-be interpreted,and even amended. There is nothing specialabout the two locations
chosen b! . ameroon. Exactlythe sameconsiderations applyto the otherproblemlocationsto which
Nigeria hasdra~nattention,andCamerooncannotbeheardtodenyit.
6. Jtr. President and Members of the Court, the locations to which Nigeria has drawn
attention in this delimitation context are the only qualification- 1 must emphasize that,
Mr. Presidcn!- they are theon& qualificationupon Nigeria's acceptance of the four boundary
instruments hi ch delimit the boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon. They are, as Nigeria
made ven clear in its Rejoinder-and againyesterday was made clearby Nigeria's distinguished
Co-Agent - the onIy qualification implicit in Nigeria's "in principle" acceptance of those four
instruments. Moreover, in practice they only concern two of those instruments, the
Thomson-Marchand Declarationandthe 1946 Orderin Council.
3 5 ~200212,p.70,para.28 (Shaw).
3 6 ~200212,p41,para.83(Cot). 7. There is no "long listYy3 of exceptions, or "myriad of issues"38,as counsel for Cameroon
expressed it to the Court. There is nothing open-ended about Nigeria's attitude,as Cameroon
would have the Court believe; in no way can Nigeria be said to have accepted the boundary
instrumentsin onebreath, andthento be rejectingthem in the next. Mr.PresidentandMembers of
the Court, Nigeria accepts thefour boundaryinstruments,subject only tothe 22 specijîc matters
whichNigeriahm identifed. Nigeriacannot be clearerthan that.
8.As Nigeria stated in its ~ejoinder~',the locationswhich give rise to genuine delimitation
problemsaccount for only some210 km of the boundary'slength - out of a total length of some
1,800 km. It is thus very far fiom the tmth to suggest,as counsel for Carneroon suggested,that
Nigeria is askingthe Courtto examine"everykilometre"ofthe boundary40.
9. It is quitewrong for Cameroon,as it mustknowverywell, to try to characterizeNigeria's
attitudeto the boundaryas an attemptto undermineit in toto.
10. Carneroon'sposition is al1the more untenable giventhe Judgrnentof this Court in the
preliminaryobjectionsphase ofthis case4'. There,as the Courtput it, Cameroonarguedthat what
it saw as Nigeria's challenge to the validityof the existing titles to Bakassi, Darak and Tipsan,
"necessarilycalls into questionthe validity as suchof the instrumentson which the course of the
entireboundary ... is ba~ed"~. That was Cameroon's argumentand the Court in terms rejected
that argument. Moreover,the Court found that the existence of a boundary disputein relation to
Bakassi,Lake Chadand Tipsan,evenwhen taken togetherwithvarious alleged incidentsalongthe
boundary,did not "establish ... the existence of a dispute concerningal1of the boundary between
Cameroon and ~i~eria"~ - that was a quote fiom what the Court said. So if what the Court
referredto as "challenges totitle" andactual "disputes"do notthreatenthe boundaryas a whole, it
3 7 ~200212,p.61,para.2 (Shaw).
3 8 ~200212,p. 70,para.27 (Shaw).
39~296, para.6.16.
4 0 ~200211,p. 50,para.28(Pellet).
4'c.J. Reports 1996,at par. 0.
42~bid.,ara.89.
43~bid.,ara.90.is impossibleto considerthat requestsfor interpretationor clarificationcanhave any sucheffect -
especiallywhen,forthe mostpart, thoserequestsareso far uncontestedinanydetail byCameroon.
11. But Cameroon still persists with its argument that Nigeria is trying to undermine the
boundary as a whole. The distinguished Co-Agentfor Nigeria demonstrated yesterdaythat this
general argument is wholly at variance with the realities along the land boundary. Let me now
addresssomeparticular - and increasingly desperate - argumentswhichCameroon has advanced
in its attempt to justiQ its conclusion that the boundary as a whole is put at risk by Nigeria's
approach.
12. Thus the Court has been told that by raising points of detailed boundary delimitation
Nigeria istryingto divertattentionawayfromthe main pointof Cameroon'scase44.TheCourt has
also been told that Nigeria's acceptance of the boundary instrumentsonly "in principle" leaves
"very little indeed"of its claimto beadheringto those instruments45 - a remark madeby counsel
when referring to the Thomson-Marchand Declaration,but presumably of general application.
Thenagain,the Courthasbeen told thatNigeria'sapproach amountedtoNigeria reservingthe right
to rewritethe boundary instruments whenever it suited Nigeriato do ~0~~A . nd, in casethat is not
enough, Nigeria's approach is said to be in conflict with what are said to be certain applicable
principles.
13.Al1this is wildlyinaccurate. Let me address themin a little detail. The secondand third
can be disposed of quickly. The Parties agree that the land boundary stretchesfor somethinglike
1,800 km. The locations,which inNigeria's submissiongiverise to delimitationproblemsaffect,
as 1 have already said, some 210km of the boundary. So some 1,600km of the boundary are
unaffected - somethingapproaching90 per cent. Only Camerooncould regardthat as "very little
indeed".
14.As for Nigeriareservingto itself therightto rewritethe boundaryinstrumentswhenever
it chooses,counselfor Carneroonevidently doesnotread Nigeria's pleadings.In themNigeria has
made it absolutelyclear, more than once, that the deficienciesto which it has drawn attention are
"CR 200211,p.30,para.20 (Ali); CR200212,p.53,para.16(Khan).
4 5 200212,p.50,para.9 (Khan).
4 6 200212,p.21,para.14(Cot).bothlimited and specific- 22to be exact,and of those, two are already admittedby Cameroonto
be legitimate, anda further nine are occasioned onlyby Cameroon'sown failureto abideby clear
and agreed boundarytexts. Far from Nigeria seeking to avoid the boundary instruments as and
when it chooses,Nigeria has donethe exactopposite. If any avoidance is in question, it is on the
partof Cameroonwhich steadfastlyrefusesto look atdetails.
15.As forCameroon's fourth suggestion - 1have not forgottenthe first,Mr. President,but
1 am saving it for last - this was that Nigeria was somehow behaving in violation of certain
applicable principles - and these seem to be principles of ~om~leteness~~i,ndi~isibility~~,
intar~~ibility~~n,dunchangeabilityS0.Quitewhere these principlescome from is not clear: their
academicring is,however, unrnistakable. Butwhat dothey amountto in practice?
16. To take first "completeness", we are told by counsel for Cameroonthat "The first, and
possiblythe most important,principle applicableto the delimitationof any boundary is that every
delimitation which has been effected as a result of a boundary agreementbetween Statesis to be
presumedas effectingthat delimitationoverthe entire length of the territory being delimited." So
this "principle" infact turns outto be no more than a "presumption". And assuch it is obviously
rebuttable.
17. But in any event, so far as the land boundary in this case is concerned, it seems to give
rise to no problems. Nigeria accepts that the land boundary between Lake Chad and Bakassi is
delimited b> thefourrelevant boundary instruments,andNigeria'squalificationregardingthe need
fora specific andlimitednumberof clarificationsdoesnot run counterto the completenessofthose
boundap instruments. Indeed, itdoesthe opposite,for in a numberof instances itis lacunaein the
delimitation which Nigeria seeksto have filledby the Court's interpretation. The Court willrecall,
for example, the unfilled gaps to which 1 drew attention yesterday between the source of the
River Sassiri and the "old boundary about Lapeo", and between there and the watershed on the
BalkosaMountains.
4 7 200211 ,.51,para.2(Fitamark).
4 8 200212 ,p.48-49, para.6 (Khan).
4 9 200212 ,.49, para.(Khan).
''CR200212,p.49, para8(Khan). 18. This so-called principle of completeness is said by Cameroon to have particular
relevanceto boundarytreaties. Treaties delimitinga frontier,it isid,establisha frontierwhichis
permanent, definiteandcompleteinthe absenceof clear proofto the contraryS1.Thisis yet another
example of Cameroon postulating a fine-sounding principle, withoutsubstantiatingit or going to
the trouble to examine its concrete application in any particular circumstances,let alone the
particular circumstances of this case. But anyway, it is the so-called principleitself which is
unfounded.
19. No treaty, not even a frontier treaty,is more permanent,definite and completethan its
terms and applicable rules of international law allow. No treaty, by virtue solely of being a
boundary treaty, is immune from the applicationof normal rules of international law which, for
example, allow for a treaty to be varied expresslyor by implication: no alleged presumptionof
permanence(the existenceof whichis in anyeventnot established)protects evena boundarytreaty
from the normal operationof suchrules - they are "permanent" only in the sensethat they stand
until they are lawfully changed. If a treaty is subject to some substantive defect affecting its
validity or effect, it isnot cured ofthat defect simplybecause it purportsto establish aboundary; if
a treaiy is unclear soasto require interpretation,it still needs interpretationeven if it is a boundary
treaty; if a treaty, for whatever reason, onlyapplies to part of a boundary, it does not suddenly
establisha complete boundaryjust becauseit isa boundarytreatybenefiting - soitis said- from
some presumption of completeness. Being a boundary treaty is not some kind of immunization
againstthe diseasesof impermanence,invalidity,ambiguity, andincompleteness.
20.Let me nowconsider "indivisibility". This is saidto involvea State notbeingableto cal1
in question any part of a boundary without destabilizing the whole boundary. Any such
proposition, even when granted the accolade of "principle", is patently incorrect. Many -
probably most - boundary cases decidedby international tribunalshave involvedthe questioning
of part onlyof a boundary, while leavingthe rest intact. Tribunalshave had no problemswiththat
situation: this Court had no problems with it in the recent case concerning Kasikili/Sedudu
''~e~l~of Cameroon,para.2.22.
''1C.J.Report1999. 21. As for "intangibility", it appearsto be a concept which is itselfsomewhat opaque. It is
related to Nigeria's statementin its Rejoinder of its unwillingness to say that it fully accepts a
boundary delimitation when it knows or sincerely believes that that delimitation is defective on
various grounds. That statement was made in a context which showsit to have been a general
approach embracing the whole boundary, including Bakassi and Lake Chad. To take such a
general statementand thenpretend that it applies inal1its aspectsjust to the sector govemed bythe
Thomson-Marchand Declaration,and then to go on to conclude that that shows that Nigeria is
raising a dispute which "goes far beyond questions of interpretationof certain provisionsof the
boundary régime"and "goes to the very heart of this régime",is asfar-fetched as it is wilfully
misleading. As Nigeria has time and time again both said in its written pleadings, and
demonstratedin these present hearings,sofar as concernsthe land boundaryal1the issuesraised by
Nigeria invoive onlyimperfectionsora lackof clarityinthe boundarydelimitation.
22. Finally, "immutability". This is just another label for mischaracterizingNigeria's
suggested interpretationsof the boundaryas attemptsto rewrite them. 1have already disposedof
one aspect ofthe matter, and1will tum to anotheraspectof it in a moment.
23. Counsel for Cameroon citedthe situation in the area around Narki as an example of a
Nigerian "rewriting" of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration. Ithas to be saidthat hispresentation
of the matter is an unrecognizablecaricature ofNigeria's argument. This is not the placeto take
the Court through this location in detail: the position is set out fully and clearly in Nigeria's
~ejoinder~~.But 1mustjust point out thatCameroon:
(a) ignoresthe fact that aerial photography54 showsthere to be severalwaterways inthe area, and
at leastthreeto the north and north-westof the town of Limanti,notjust the two shown on
Cameroon'smap55;
(b) Cameroon ignores the fact that, since the Thomson-Marchand Declarationdoes not indicate
which ofthese is to befollowed,itsvery termsarethereforedefective;
53~p330-331,paras.7.26-7.30.
54~ejoinderfNigeria,fig.7.3, facing p.330.
55~udgesf'older,19Feb.,doc.2714.(c) it ignoresthe factthat the Declarationrequires the boundaryto follow a river "quite close" to
thetown of Limanti,whichNigeria's interpretationdoes, while Cameroon'sdoes not; and
(4 it ignores the fact that the Declaration refers to the boundary following that river to a
confluencewhich is about 2 km to the north-west of Limanti, which Nigeria's interpretation
does,but whichCameroon'sdoes not,preferringinsteada confluenceabout 1km duenorth of
Limanti.
24. Cameroon seeks to suggest that Nigeria's reason for its suggested interpretationof the
boundary alignment is based on the existence and location of two well-established Nigerian
villages. No, Mr. President: the location of villages is evidence in support of Nigeria's
interpretation, butNigeria's interpretationof the Declarationaddressesthe meaningto be given to
the evidentambiguitiesin the actual termsofthat Declaration- termswhichCarneroonquotesbut
simplyrefusesto examineinrelationto the features clearlyshownto exist onthe ground.
25.Let me now,at last,tur no the firstpoint raisedby Cameroon in its attempttojustiQ its
conclusion that Nigeria is challenging the boundaryin toto. This point calls for more thorough
deconstruction.
26. Itis said by Cameroonthat Nigeria is trying to distract the Court fromthe main issue,
namel~ - so Carneroonsays - the confirmation ofthe boundary instruments. But Nigeriamust
remind theCourt that Carneroonhas put twomatters in issue in these proceedings. Cameroondid
indeed. cven if only by necessary implicati-n and as it has subsequentlyexplained- invitethe
Coun to confirm the four relevantboundaryinstruments: but Cameroon'sAdditional Application
also invitedthe Court to "specifj definitively"the landboundary. Indeed, that could be seen as
Cameroon'sprimaryrequesttothe Court.
37. Cameroon has never denied- and indeed it cannot deny- that its Additional
Applicationused thosewords: let me remindthe Courtwhat Cameroon actuallysaid.
28. Cameroon, in subparagraph CI )f paragraph17 of its Additional Application, put the
followingrequestto the Court. Inview interalia of Nigeria's attitude regarding
"the legal instrumentsdefining the frontier betweenthe two countries and the exact
course of that frontier, the Republic of Cameroon respectfully asks the Court to
speciS, definitively the frontier between Cameroonand the Federal Republic of
NigeriafromLake Chadto thesea". 29. The Court will have noted Cameroon's referencesto both "the exact course of that
frontier" andthe expressrequest "to specie definitively" thefrontierbetweenthetwo States.
30. But in its Reply Cameroonsought to change its position. It appeared to blame Nigeria
for introducing the request that the boundary should be specified definitivelyS6,but this was
7
obviouslyjust a face-saving attemptto cover its real purpose: this was to tryto remove fiom the
Court's considerationCameroon's originalrequestthat the Court should "specie definitively"the
land boundary betweenLake Chadand Bakassi,and to leavethe Courtwith onlythe more limited
requestthatthe Courtshould confirmthe boundaryas delimited intherelevant instruments.
31. Cameroon in these hearings has tried also to suggest that Nigeria had wrongly taken
Cameroon's wordsout of their context. But, Nigeria took Cameroon's words precisely intheir
context. CamerooncomplainedofNigeria's attitude towards"the exactcourse ofthe frontieryya,nd
referred to the instrumentsdelimitingthe boundary: andCameroonthen asked the Courtto specie
that boundary definitively. The context is absolutely clear: it showsthat Cameroon originally
asked forthe boundaryto be establishedwith exactitude. Cameroonnow obviously regretshaving
done so: and the revised language ofits submissions in its Reply is an admissionthat its earlier
language meant what Nigeria says it meant, namely that Cameroonhad by that earlier language
submitted to the Court both a requestto confirmthe relevant instruments and a requestto speciS,
the boundaxydefinitively.
32.Now Cameroon wants to withdrawfiom the Courtthe secondof those requestswhich it
had originally put before the Court. But Cameroon hasno right to do that. Once put before the
Court by Cameroon,as the Applicant,the issue cannot be unilaterally withdrawn. That follows
fiom the previousdecision of this Courtin the BarceIonaTraction cases7,referred to yesterdayby
the distinguished Co-AgentforNigeria.
33. Moreover,Cameroon seemsto have forgotten what this Court has already found,that it
has to deal with the specifics of the boundary delimitation. Let me recall exactly what the Court
said in the preliminary objections5'phase of these proceedings. In introducing Nigeria's fifth
-
%ee RejoinderofNigeria,pp.297-298,paras.6.19-6.20.
"1.C.J.Reports 1964.
"1.C.J.Reports 1998.preliminary objection,the Court noted that "Cameroonrequests that the Court"- and here the
Court quoted Cameroon'svery words - "specifydefinitivelythe frontier between Cameroonand
Nigeria fiom LakeChad to the sea" (para.86). And then at the end of its treatment of that
objection, the Court said that it "is seised with the submission of Cameroon which aims at a
definitive determinationof its boundarywithNigeria fiom Lake Chad to the sea" (para.96). It is
clear that the Court was in no doubtbut that it was dealingwith a case involvingthe detailsof the
delimitationof the boundary,andthatthat waswhat Cameroonwas asking itto do.
34.Intruth, it is apparentthatthe Court hasbefore itthe tworequests - first,the requestfor
general confirmation that the relevant boundary instruments are indeed the instruments which
govem the delimitation of the boundary, and the request that the Court should "specify
definitively"that landboundary.
35.Nigeria has addressedbothby- if 1maywrap up both answers in a single statement-
acknowledging that the four relevant boundary instruments govern the delimitation of the
boundary, although in order for them to do so effectively a specific and limited number of
deficienciesneedto be clarifiedfirst.
36. Cameroon, however,hastaken a differentattitude. It has concentratedonly on the first
issue, the confirmation of the four boundaryinstruments. It disdainsto get its hands dirîy with
boundary detail: as counsel said,"we deliberatelydo not intendto seek to rebut these allegations
point by point"s9. As in other aspects of this case, Cameroon prefersto keep its distance fiom
anythingto do withdetail: it prefersgeneral abstractions, so-calledprinciples,theoreticalanalyses,
and so on. So - exceptonlytheone casewhereit is thought to suit Carneroon,atthe mouthofthe
Ebedji - Cameroon avoids detailed discussion of the specific delimitation problems to which
Nigeria hasdrawnattention.
37. That, of course, is a matterfor Cameroonto decide for itself. But having put the matter
of definitive boundary delimitation on the table, and being unable, in accordance with the
jurisprudence of this Court, unilaterally towithdrawit fromthe Court, Cameroonlets its case - if
it has one- go by default. A party whose arguments and evidenceare inadequate inevitably
5 9 2002/1,p.33,para.31(trans.)(Pellet).incursthe risk that onthe merits its case maybe found wanting60.And this must be al1the more so
in respectof an aspect of the case- namelythe definitivespecificationof the boundary- which
that party had itself introduced, and where it is not a matter just of inadequate evidence or
argument,but of noneat all.
38. Cameroon, Mr.President and Members of the Court, is the Party which has spentso
muchtimetelling the Courtthat the boundaryinstrumentshavean almost sacred quality. Theyare,
so Cameroon says, sufficient in themselves, and are to be observed as they stand. But then
Cameroonitself must abide by those instruments. Nigerianoted, and invitesthe Court particularly
to note,the words of counselfor Cameroon:
"If it turned out that some depictions on Cameroon's maps were in
contradictionwithany of thetreatyprovisions determiningthe courseof the boundary,
this Court can be assured that Cameroon will not hesitate to bring its maps in
accordancewiththe true stateofthe lawas quicklyaspossible.'"'
Presumablythat applies notjust to paper conduct- the maps - but to real conduct- activityon
the ground.
39. Of course, Cameroon'scommitmentis meaninglessunless Cameroonis ready to discuss
the cartographicandtopographicdetails. But it is clearthatCameroondoesnot wantto discussthe
detail of al1this. Generalities- pure verbiage- are what Cameroon prefers. So much so that
Cameroonaccuses Nigeria of diverting attentionfiom the main Camerooncase by going into al1
this uncomfortabledetai~~-~ uncomfortablefor Cameroon,that is.
40. But it is, in fact, unavoidablethat the boundary delimitationmust get into detail: unlike
Cameroon'srhetoric, the boundary is on the ground, not in the clouds. Cameroonforgets that it
was Cameroon, not Nigeria, which asked this Court to "specifj definitively" the land boundary.
And Nigeria welcomes such a definitive specification. Nigeria does not accept that Cameroon is
now entitledto Saythat when it said "specifj definitively" itreally meant no more than "confirm
generally". Cameroon,having expresslyputthe definitivespecificationofthe boundarybeforethe
Court,hasno right in lawnow to seekto withdrawthat issuefiom the Court.
60~reliminarobjections,I.C.J. Reports1998,atpara.101.
6 1 ~200212,p.52,para.13(Khan).
6 2 ~200211, p. 30,para.20 (Ali). 41. Mr. Presidentand Members of the Court, Cameroon'sfailure to addressthe issue which
it itself placedbeforetheCourihas led Cameroonto seektojustiQ its failure by mischaracterizing
Nigeria's position in a number of ways. ThusNigeria's wish to see the meaning of the boundary
instruments clarified so as to give proper effectto the intentions of the Parti-s that is, by the
classic processof interpretingtexts whichareshown notto be clear, or which Cameroon's conduct
has throwninto doubt - has beenmisrepresentedby Cameroonas anattempt byNigeria to rewrite
the termsof the boundaryinstruments. Thisisfar frombeingthe case.
42. Nigeria seeks from the Couri an interpretation of certain provisionsin the relevant
instruments. In those cases where Nigeria has drawn attention to Cameroon's conduct which
departs from the terms of the instruments, Nigeria simply asks the Court to reaffirm the agreed
texts, and to agree that it meanswhat Nigeria contendsthat it means. In those other cases where
Nigeria has drawn attention to evident defects in the sense of the delimitation language itself-
that is,defectsin the delimitations such,ascounselforCameroonput it - Nigeriaasks the Court
to interpretthat text soasto makeits meaningclear.
43. It is in the nature of interpretationthat it resultsin language which is different fromthat
of the text being interpreted. There would be no interpretationif the Court simplysaid that some
given words meant those samewords: one cannotusefullyinterpret an ambiguousterm or phrase
simply byrepeatingthe very sameword or phrase. Nigeria, accordingly, suggestedto the Courtthe
language which, in Nigeria's submission,the defective text was intended to bear and which it
should be interpretedas bearing. Nigeria is in no way seeking to vary the substance ofwhat the
makers of the boundary instrumentsintended, but only to interpret the terms used in order the
better to give expressionto that intended substance.
44.Nor- to pickup anotherof Cameroon's mischaracterizationsof Nigeria'sposition - is
Nigeria unilaterallymakingboundarychanges. Nigeria hasnot soughtto do so. WhatNigeriahas
done isto makesubmissionsto the Court, supportedby al1necessaryreasons, asto what the correct
interpretation of the boundary instruments shouldbe and how that interpretation might best be
expressed in words. It is certainlywithin the competence of the Court to interpretthe boundary
instruments: Cameroon hasnotdenied that. 45. Carneroonacknowledgesthat both Partiesacceptthe boundary instruments,but differin
theirinterpretations: "that is their right"- so said counsel for ~ameroon~~.Nigeria is entitled to
make submissions to the Court about the correct interpretation. And so too, of course, can
Cameroon: it has the choice of putting forward its own views, or it can continue to avoid
discussing the practical issues and stay silent. In the light of the submissions presented by the
Parties, it is of course,the Court whichwill decide.
46. Nigeria thought it would be convenient,and helpful,if its suggested formulationsfor a
more accurate expression of the original intentions were embodied in the framework of the
boundary instruments,so that theirplace inthe overallpatternof the instrumentwouldbe apparent.
But if,Mr.President andMembers of the Court,that way of proceedingis not convenient,Nigeria
would naturally have no objection to any other equivalent way of proceeding which might
commenditself to the Court. Forexample,if theCourtwouldthinkitmoreappropriatetoconfm the
boundary instrumentswhile at the sarnetime recordingsepmtely its conclusionsasto how certainof
theirprovisionsaretobe interpretedorunderstood,Nigeriawouldof courseacceptsuchan approach.
47. The fact is that we knowmore todaythan was known in 1929-1931 or 1946. It is true
that in 1931the UnitedKingdom andFrancethoughtthat theThomson-MarchandDeclarationwas
sufficientlyclear to makeprovision for demarcation. But that was 1931: today is2002,and quitea
lotmore isnow knownof the localtopography.
48. The questionreally is this: shouldwe staywith anoldertextwhich can nowbe shownto
be wrong? Our presentcase has severalsimilaritieswith theArgentina-ChileFrontiercase-the
LaPalenacase64,decided in 1966. There, the Courtwill recall,there had been an Arbitral Award
in 1902 which delimited the boundary in termsof the line followed by a certain river. Itthen
became apparent,inthe light of moremodern information,thatwhile the original ArbitralTribunal
had assumedthe riverto have its sourceon a particularmountain,in fact its sourcewas elsewhere.
There was no question of it being thought right for the 1966 Tribunal simply to abdicate its
a
îunctions and Saythat the original Award had said what it said, and that al1the present Tribunal
could do was Saythe samething again. No, Mr.President andMembers ofthe Court,the Tribunal
6 3 200212,p.33,para 54.
"1966,ILR, Vol.38,p.10.in thatcase - presided over by Lord McNair- dealtwith the question of interpretationas best it
couldinthe lightofthe more accurateknowledgewhichwas bythen available.
49. What the La Palenacase also demonstrates is that problems of delimitation are not
avoided,as counselfor Cameroonseemto thing, bythe use in a delimitationof natural features -
indeed,it is oftenthe use of naturalfeatures, especiallywhenimperfectlyunderstood,which is the
very cause of problems. TheLaPalenacase itself involved ariver: that did not help the parties,
giventhat its coursewas misdescribed. TherecentKasikili/Sedudu Islandcase involved a riverand
an island, and that did not help the parties whenthey had to decide which side of the island the
mainchannel oftheriver followed.
50. In our present case- and contraryto what counsel forCarneroon ~aid~ ~ most of the
problemlocationsidentified byNigeria involvenaturalfeatures - rivers, watersheds,hills,and so
on. The use of such features in a delimitationdoes not help unless the delimitation is both clear
and correct as to whichriver, watershedor hi11is beingreferred to; equally, problemswill remain
if, eventhough the delimitation is clear and correct onsuch matters, a party- like Cameroonin
this case- adopts as its boundarya line which is at variance with the features correctly used as
partofthe delimitation.
51. Whatever approach is adopted, Nigeria submits that the interests of accuracy and
certainty,and thus of stability, would be best served if,where the interpretation of the boundary
instruments is unclear, key points were identified by geographical CO-ordinates. Counsel for
~arneroon~~observed that "there is no principle of international law requiring a frontierto be
delimited exclusivelyin terms of geographical CO-ordinateasnd it is quite commonfor frontiersto
be delimited by reference to natural features such as watercourses, mountains, crestlines or
watersheds, as in this case". Counsel noted also that the lack of CO-ordinatesin the boundary
instrumentswas "precisely one ofthe reasons which ledthe Courtto find, in its 1998Judgment,
that ithadjurisdictionto confirmthe existinginstruments".
52. Counselfor Cameroonwas being even-handed: hewas partly right, and partly wrong.
Nigeriaagrees thatthere is norule of internationallawwhich requiresthat boundariesbe delimited
6 5 ~200211,p.75, para 15(Sima).
"CR200211,p.46, para.15;p.29,para.15(Englishtrans.).exclusivelyin terms of geographical CO-ordinates.Butithelps, Mr.President,ithelps - andthere
is equallyno rule of intemationallaw whichexcludes it. It helps wherea boundaryfollowsa route
which lacks distinctive natural features; it helps where natural features are not themselves very
precise- which is presumablywhy Cameroon itself wants the mouth of the Ebedji delimitedin
terms of CO-ordinates.The precisionwhich isnowadays possiblewiththe use of GPStechnology
is somethingwhich, for example,Mr. Thomsonand Mr.Marchandcouldhardlyhave imagined.
53.But in Nigeria's submissioncounselfor Cameroonwas wrongin sayingthat the absence
of CO-ordinatesin the instrumentswas "preciselyone ofthereasons"whythe Courtheld in its 1998
Judgment that it had jurisdiction. How does counsel know? TheCourt itself never gave that
particularreason fordecidingas it did.
54.Moreover, counsel is also wrong in suggestingthat in 1998the Court held that "it had
jurisdiction toonfirmthe existinginstruments"-as ifthe Courthadat that stage alreadydecided
that al1thatwas in issuein thispart of the casewas the confirmationofthe existing instrumentsand
not the definitivespecificationof the boundary. But that not whatthe Court decided, andwhat it
actually said was in the opposite sense. Al1 that the Court decided was that Nigeria's fifth
preliminary objection was rejected; and since that objection was that there was no dispute
conceming "boundary delimitation as such", what the Court held was, in effect,that there was a
dispute conceming "boundary delimitation as such". The Court said nothing about the dispute
being aboutthe "confirmationof the existing [boundary]instruments". Indeed, as 1have already
noted, the Court acknowledgedthat it was "seised with the submissionof Cameroonwhichaimsat
a definitivedeterminationof its boundary withNigeria fromLake Chadto the sea" (para.93) - a
submissionwhich aimsat a definitivedeterminationof itsboundarywithNigeria.
55. If anything, thereforeMr. President and Members of the Court, the Court has already
accepted that the issue before the Court is indeed the issue which Cameroonitself put beforethe
Court, namely, not merely the confirmation in general of the boundary instruments,but also the
definitive specification of the boundary. In stating that Nigeria sees this as being the task put
before the Court, let me emphasizethat Nigeria is not askingthe Courtto assumefunctionswhich
are properly left to demarcation. Nigeria accepts that at the demarcation phase a certain latitude
has to be left to the demarcation tearntonsurethat, in marking the boundaryonthe ground,theydo so in a way which makes sense, given the immediatetopography and the local population
factorswithwhichthey arefaced.
56.That kind of demarcationflexibility,however, is usually quite limited, both in territorial
scope andinpurpose. Thus,in the March 1913Anglo-GermanTreaty adeflectionofthe delimited
boundaryupto 1 !Lmileswaspermitted, butonlysothat farmswere not separatedfromthe villages
to whichthey belonged6'. The Mandatefor the British Cameroonsallowedthe Milner-Simonline
to be "slightlymodified", but only by mutual agreement of thetwo Governments,andonly "where
an examinationof the localities showsthat it is undesirable ... to adherestrictly to the line" either
inthe interestsofthe inhabitantsor by reason of inaccuraciesinthe Moiselmap68.
57.It is a prerequisitefor that kind of practicalmargin of appreciationthat the delimitation
which the demarcation team is applying on the ground is itselfsufficientlyclear. If, for example,
there is uncertaintyas to which of two rivers the boundaryis to follow, it askstoo much of the
demarcation team to requirethem to take that decision: it is the delimitationwhich needs to be
clarified,beforethe demarcationteamcanundertakeitstask.
58. The example of bifurcatingrivers is, in fact, verymuch to the point. This Court didnot
dismiss the Kasikili/Sedudu Islandcase because it was onlya demarcation problem: no- it was
treated by the Court as fairlyand squarely aproblemof delimitationandinterpretation. Similarly,
in Ourpresentcase, the twoParties have tried to deal with the mouth ofthe Ebedji overa period of
several years, but have failed to reach agreement - and even if they had been able to reach
agreement, as Carneroon contends, the point remains: an issue which the Parties have been
discussingfor several years is in no way the sortof technical issue whichcan properlybe left to a
demarcationteam to resolve.
59. Counsel for Cameroon correctly said that matters "of a purely technical character"
should be leftfor dernar~ation~~N . igeria agrees. That is why the dozenproblem placesto which
Nigeria has drawn the Court's attentionare notpurely technical. Theyinvolve genuinelydifficult
cartographieissues, and sometimessubstantialpolicychoices. They al1involvethe veryterms of the
-- --
67~ounter-~emoriaolf Nigeria,Ann.NC-M45,Art.28.
68~ounter-~emoriaolf Nigeria,Ann.NC-M51,Art.1.
6 9 ~20024 p. 55,para.19.olddelimitations - they doinvolvethe delimitationassuch,andnotjust demarcation. Thereare no
doubtlesser pointsas well,butthey willproperly ariseat that laterstage, asNigeriahas noted in its
writtenpleadings70. l
60.And, Mr.President,those lesserpoints willbe of suchakind as to beproperly resolvable
i
bya demarcation commission: al1the potentiallyseriousproblemsof interpretationwill havebeen
settledfirst bythisCourt's Judgrnent.
61. Let meremind the Court of Cameroon'sattitudein thisrespect. Counselfor cameroon7'
regardedthe taskas one involving"a carefulfilling of certain lacunaeand theeliminationof some
uncertainties", and he consideredthis to be a task which "can easily be entrustedto a boundary
commission". Just to pausethere for a moment, as a matter of principle demarcationis not about
filling"lacunae" or eliminating "uncertainties": a properdelimitation shouldnot leaveanylacunae
or uncertainties. And so far as present practicalities are concemed, Nigeria submits that it is
manifestly clearthat the kindof "lacunae"and "uncertainties"towhichNigeria has drawnattention
aremost certainly not the kindof thingtobe left "easily"to a demarcationteam.
62. But there is anotheraspect to the "ease" withwhich it is said a demarcationcommission
could pursue itstask. Nigeria has suggested,as the Courtwill be aware, that a limitednumber of
delimitationsaredefective, andhas put fonvard what itsuggestswould be thecorrect interpretation
ofthe defectiveprovisions. Howdoes counsel for Cameroonviewthese suggestedinterpretations?
Nigeria, he says,gives "a one-sided and highly disputable interpretationof certain stipulationsof
the Thomson-Marchand ~eclaration"~~.Presumably, therefore, a demarcation commissionis, in
Cameroon's view, to be left to grapple with these "highly disputable" matters. Their task,
Mr.President,seems likelytobe anythingbut "easy", by Cameroon'sown admission.
63. Perhaps, indeed,that was what made counsel pause. For he went on to admit that a
demarcation commissionmightnot, afterall, be ableto deal withthe "lacunae" and "uncertainties".
Whathe said wasthis: "It maywell be thatcommon effortsto overcomedifficultiesin interpreting
certainstipulationsof the Thomson-MarchandDeclarationmay fail." t
70~ejoindeofNigeria,p.302,para.6.27.
7CR200212,p. 57, para.25 (Khan).
7 2 ~200212,p. 59,para.30(Khan). 64. Pleasenote, Mr.President,"It may wellbe" - inotherwords, failure is quite likely: so
much for the problems being"easily" resolvable by a demarcationcommission. And when that
failure to resolvethe issues occurs, whatoes counsel suggest should happen then?- he says:
"some of these issues may then have to be referred back to the Court for a definitive ruling.
Cameroonisinagreementwith sucha solution."
65. So Cameroon - oflficially,and formally,before this Co-rtis now contemplatingthat
this Court, whenit delivers itsdgrnentin this case,will nothave finished it. Hitherto it has been
Cameroon which has been complaining about how long this case has taken, but now wemust
considercomingback for more!
66. AndMr.President,allowmeto stresswhat it isthat Cameroon wantsto cornebackto the
Court for- "a definitiveruling". But that is where Cameroonstarted in this case, with a request
for a boundaryto be "specified definitively". Andthat is what Carneroo- and Nigeria- must
get, inthese proceedings, not at some future time when the demarcation commission gets into
difficulties,as it would be bound to,over the very "lacunae" and "uncertainties" to whichNigeria
is drawing attention. As this Courtsaid in the BarcelonaTractioncase73,the Respondent'srightto
objectto anyattemptby the Applicantto withdraw acase is specifically"to enable it to ensurethat
thematter is finallydisposedof forgood".
67. Before1conclude this pleading on the land boundary aspect of the case, there is one
additionalunfinishedpiece of businesswhich 1mustaddress. It concerns a stretch of the boundary
wherethere is noagreed delimitation,namelyto thenorth andeast of the Bakassi Peninsula. Now,
although that is not part of the land boundary between Bakassi and Lake Chad, it is perhaps
convenientto addressthis matter now.
68. Aswasexplainedat the endof lastweek,it is Nigeria'ssubmissionthat ArticlesXVIIIto
XXII of the Anglo-GermanTreaty of March 1913are ineffectiveas an agreed delimitation ofthe
boundary. Those Articles purported to delimit a boundary down the Akwayafe River, on the
western side of the peninsula. Since in Nigeria's submissionthose Articles are ineffective,the
questionarises- where doesthe boundaryrun?
'%c. Reports1964,p.20. 69. In principle, the answer is straightforward. The Treaty boundary follows the River
Akwayafe southwards untilit meets the northem limitsof the territorial authorityof the Kingsand
Chiefs of Old Calabar in 1913,for it is at that point that the 1913Treaty became ineffectiveby
reason of Great Britain's lack of competenceto diminish the territorial interests of Old Calabar.
t
Beyondthat point,namelyto the south ofthat point, notrue territorialboundarywas establishedin
the Bakassi area by binding and effective international agreement- the provisions ofthe
1913Treaty were ineffective,and the earlier Anglo-German agreementswere only concemedwith
spheresof interestand notthe limits ofterritorial sovereignty.
70. In the absence of effective agreements, one must have recouse to the customary
boundary, which is the Rio del Rey. Historically, as Nigeria showed last week, the territorial
authorityof the Kingsand Chiefsof Old Calabarextendedat leastasfar eastasthat watenvay.
71. In applyingthese general principles,the starting point isthe last of the Articles of the
1913Treaty which is untaintedby the defectwhich rendersthe five Articles mentioned ineffective,
and that is Article XVII: itsterms are attab 69 in thejudges' folder. At the end of that Article the
boundary is describedas running "to a pillaron thebankof the RiverAkpakorum .. .andthenceby
the shortestlineto thethalwegof the RiverAkpakorum,knownin its lower reachesastheAkwayafe
(Akwajafe)" .
72. The map on the screennow showsthese features- andthis map is also attab 69 in the
judges' folder. The River AkpakorumorAkwayafeis clearlyshown,as isthe location ofthe pillar
referred to. However, the boundary on the River Akwayafe comes to an end at the point onthe
river atwhich theterritorial authorityofthe Kings andChiefs of Old Calabarbegan. The available
evidence, whichis set out in Nigeria's ~ounter-~ernorial'~,showsthat their authority extendedat
least as far up the river as various Settlementsin the neighbourhood of the present town of
Archibong, and includedthe present towns of Akwa, Mbenmong and Nwanya, al1of which are
long-establishedNigerian towns.
73. Accordingly, the point in the Akwayafe at which the boundary ends is a point to the a
northof these locations. To be specific,it isthe point onthe thalweg ofthat river whichis opposite
74pp.94-96,paras.6.35-6.36.the midpoint of the mouth of Archibong Creek. That creek, and the position of the thalweg
opposite its midpoint, are being pointed out on the map now on the screen, and at tab 70 in the
judges' folder.
74. The same principle which governedthe determinationof the point on the Akwayafe at
which the operation of the 1913Treaty came to an end applies also to the determination of the
overland course of the boundary to the head of the Rio del Rey. Namely, it is a line which
representsthe limitsof the territorialauthorityofthe KingsandChiefs of Old Calabar in 1913.
75.Accordingly, fiom the thalweg inthe river opposite themidpoint inArchibongCreekthe
customary boundary runs to that midpoint in the creek, and then overland to the head of the
Rio delRey by way of a line which would retain as Nigerian the towns of Archibong, Akwa,
Nwanyo,Mbenmongand Fumen,al1of whichare long-establishedNigerian towns. But such a line
leaves asCameroonianthetownsof Isangele, Itabina, AmotoandOdon.
76. In delimiting the boundary line more precisely, it is possible for the most partto use
natural features. The limitsof the territorial authorityof the Kings and Chiefsof OldCalabar are
conveniently represented by two principal inland waterways known as Archibong Creek and
Ikankan Creek. This line is set out in appropriate geographicaldetail, including CO-ordinatesi,n
paragraph 11.8of Nigeria's Counter-Memorial,and is illustratedon maps36 and 39 in Nigeria's
Counter-Memorialatlas. One of those maps is now on the screen, and at tab 70 in the judges'
folder,sothat theline of the boundarycanbe easilyseen.
77.As is being pointedout on the map,that linetakes the boundary alongArchibongCreek,
alongthe courseof an identifiedtributaryto its source,crossesoverland to the left bankof Ikankan
Creek, andthen follows that bank of the creekto the head ofthe Rio del Rey. The locationof the
head of theRio del Rey was fixed by the Anglo-GermanAgreementof 14April 1893as being "the
point ... wherethe two waterways,namedUrüfian and Ikankan ... meet"75.Nigeria accepts that
geographicallocationfor this present purpose.
78.Fromthere southwardsthe natureof the Riodel Reyaffectsthe direction ofthe boundary
line. It is in its upper reaches a complexwaterway, with severalchannels. As the decision of the
7S~ounter-~emoriolfNigeria,Ann.27.CourtofArbitrationin theArgentine-Chile Frontiercase76held, inthe absenceof clear evidenceto
the contrarythere is a presumptionthatwhere a boundaryhas to follow a riverandthe riverdivides
intotwoor more channels,andnothingis said aboutwhichchannelis to be followed,the boundary
will normallyfollowthe majorchannel.
79. Furthermore,there is also a presumptionthat where a boundary is to follow a river, it is
the midline of that river which constitutes the boundary- but that is a concept which, where
fîsheriesor water-borne tradingare important,translatesto the middle of the navigable channelfor
so far upstreamasnavigationispossible,andthereafterthe geographicalmiddleofthe river.
80.Accordingly, from the headof the Rio del Reythe boundary runs southwardsto the sea,
followingthe middle of the navigable channelof the main channel of that waterway, as is now
being demonstratedon the mapon the screen,whichisattab 70inthejudges' folder.
81. Mr. President, having in this way reminded the Court of the issue at the heart of this
case - the questionof title to the BakassiPeninsula - this mightbe an opportunemomentforthe
Court to look at the short video of Bakassi which Nigeria has prepared. If that would be
convenientfor the Court, might 1now, in expressing my gratitudeto the Courtfor the attention it
has givenme, inviteyou to cal1uponMrs.Andem-Ewa to introducethis video.
Le PRESIDENT :Je vous remercie, sir Arthur. Je vais maintenant passer la parole a
Mme Andem-Ewapour la présentation de lavidéocassette dont la projection avait été retardée.
You havethe floor.
Mrs. ANDEM-EWA: Thankyou.
Introduction
1.Mr. President, distinguished Membersof the Court, it is again an honourfor meto appear
beforethis distinguishedbody.
2.As you know,Nigeria prepareda short videorelatingto the Bakassi Peninsula. On Friday 4
momingyou kindlyallowedusto showthis video at a point whereNigeria consideredit opportune
761966,LR,Vol.38, p.10.to do so.Mr. President,with your kindpermission,we shallnow playto the Courtthe video which
1hopewill givethe distinguishedjudges a better understandingof the Bakassi areatha1 described
in more detail last Thursday. A large number of similar images to these images on video were
included inVolume XIIof the Counter-Memorialand arealsoat tab 4 ofthejudges' folder.
Cornmentaryovervideo presentation
3. Thisfirst bitoffootage wastakenon thewayj-om Ikang toArchibong.
It shows some of the mangrovesin the area anda number offshermen going about their
dailybusiness.
Youwill alsonotethe large expansesofwaterbetweenthe islands.
These,for instance,are woodcutterscarryingwood homefor smokingfish.
This is Akwa and ifs surroundingarea in the north of the peninsula, whichyou can see is
severalmetresabovesea level. Thisshowstheestablishedrainforestofthearea.
This is Archibong town and the mission bell. [Pause (Moving Ja1al)l Next comes the
PalaverHouse and the "efe Ebe" (Ekpeshrine). The gentlemanon the le3 is thechief of Akwa
Town,an Ekpe title-holderand theEkpe masqueradeon the right symbolizestheEkpe tradition.
Hereyou see the centre of Archibong.It is clearlybuiltonsolidground.
Theseare theprimary andsecondaryschools inArchibongTown.
Thisis the healthcentreinArchibong. Hereisanother masquerade.
Theseareafew oftheschoolchildren,whobelongtothe schoolyouhavejust seen.
Thefootage nowtakesusalongthe creekstoAbana.
Here isAbana. Photographsof this townare undertub3 of thejudges 'folder.
And thisisEast Atabong. Thepeople seenhereareawaitingthearrival of thevisitingteam.
Theseare localtownspeopledemonstratingthelocal traditionaldancingcalled "Ukwa ".
And this is West Atabong, where you can see a substantial town with a substantial
population. [LongPause]
This is a gatheringut the secondaryschool and civiccentre in WestAtabong. Theseare
traditionalrulersof WestAtabong, amongstwhomisanEtubom.
Mr. President,that concludesthe video presentation. 4.1 hopethat this hasassistedthe Court invisualizingtheBakassi Peninsula.
5. This, Mr. President, concludes mybrief presentation. This mightbe a convenienttime to
conclude Nigeria's presentation for today. 1therefore would ask you, Mr.President,to cal1on I
Mr. Ian Brownliefirst thingtomorrow moming to present Nigeria's argumentsin relationto Lake
*
Chad.
Thank you,Mr. President.
Le PRESIDENT :Je vous remercie beaucoup,Madame. Ceci met un terme à notre séance
de ce matin. La prochaineséanceauralieu demain à 10heures. La séanceest levée.
L'audience est levéeà 12 h15.
Public sitting held on Tuesday 5 March 2002, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding