INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING
.THE LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY
BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA
(Carrieroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening)
Comments of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
on the answers to the Judges' Questions
submitted by Cameroon on 10 Marèh 2002
4 April2002 1
Comments on the answers to the Judges' Questions submitted by Cameroon on
1 0 March 2002
Cameroon filed its response to the questions raised by Judge Fleischhauer on 10 March
·2002, and these were sent to the Agent for Nigeria by the Registry on 11 March 2002.
Cameroon nowhere states whether these were its final answers or whether it intended to
provide fuller andmore detailed answers by 4 April 2002.
Thus Nigeria's comments contained here are a response to those answers submitted to the
Court on 10 March 2002, and received by Nigeria on 11 March 2002. Nigeria reserves the
rightto make further·comments on any additional answer that Cameroon may file with the
Court by 4 April2002.
Nigeria does not intend here to refer in detail to its own arguments, which are set out in full
in its pleadings.and..i.n-its...af-.to..Judge. Fleischhauer's.question, which it filed at the
Court on 4 April 2002. ln this present document, Nigeria will confine itself simply to
commenting on points raisedby Cameroon in the written responses filed at the Court on 10
March 2002.
1.1 Lake Chad
This is not one of the areas identified by Nigeria as having problems of defective
delimitation. Nigeria's arguments in respect of Lake Chad are set out in the Rejoinder at
Chapters 4 and5, pages 217-277.
1.2 The mouth of the Ebeji
Cameroon states that from Point V, the boundary as described in the Thomson Marchand
Declaration followsthe course of the El Beid (Ebeji) River. This is an impossibility.Point V is 2
not the mouth of the Ebeji, nor does it lie on that river, or any other river. Nigeria has given
detailsabout this in itRejoinder at paragraphs 7.16-7.25.
1.3 Narki
Nigeria respectfully draws the attention of the Court to the pointmade by Nigeria's Counsel in
the second round of the oral proceedings that the River Ngassaoua flows into the Agzabame
marsh, and not out of it, as Cameroon claims.
Nigeria notes that Cameroon does not make any substantive comment on the May 1921
sketch map signed by British and French officiais, referred to in paragraph 7.28 of the
Rejoinder and at Annex NR 151.
Nigeria denies that the Lamido of Limani govem~ the inhabitants of Narki, and notes that
Cameroon has produced no evidence of this activity.
Nigeria has produced, in its Rejoinder and in the oral proceedings (Tab 14 of the Judges'
Folderfor the Second Round), aerial photography which showsthat there is a watercourse in
the location claimed by Nigeria. lts alignment agrees with that shown in the May 1921 sketch
map at Annex NR 151. This clearly refutes Cameroon's claim that this water course does not
exist.
1.4 Kirawa River
Nigeria denies that it has dug an artificial channel in the vicinity of the village of Gange.
Cameroon has produced no evidence at ali of such a construction by Nigeria. ln any event,
examination of Figure 7.5 in Nigeria's Rejoinder shows that Gange is downstream of the
disputed section, and so any such construction in this area would have no affect on the river
course in the disputed section.
CR 2002/19 p.22,para.16 (Macdonald). 3
Nigeria regards the normal course of the Kirawa River as following the main channel, which is
indisputably the eastern channel, as Nigeria has shawn in paragraphs 7.33 and 7.34 of its
Rejoinder.
1.5 KohomRiver
A phrase such as "Mount Ngossi" can only be applied to a single peak. If the draftsmen of the
Thomson Marchand Declaration had wished to use a mountain range, as Cameroon suggests,
they wou Id have used the phrase "Ngossi Mountains". The summit to which Cameroon seeks
to attach the name Mount Ngossi is called Matakam and, as a triangulation point, is so named
in the records of the Federal Surveys Departméntof Nigeria.
1.6 Turu
2
Nigeria has shown in its pleadings that Turu has expanded across the watershed and into
territory, which, under the terms of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, belongs to Nigeria. lt
does not, therefore, remain entirely within Cameroonian territory as Cameroon asserts.
Although Nigeria does acknowledge that the village of Turu as it existed in 1929 was left to
France, it has not acquiesced and does not acquiesce in its expansion into Nigerian territory.
1.7 Fromthe mountainrange of Ngosito Rumsiki
Nigeria respectfully draws the Court's attentioh to the tact that boundary does not follow the
watershed ali the way from Mabas to Rumsiki. There are two sections, in the vicinity of Wula
Hanko and of Rumsiki, where the Thomson-Marchand Declaration requires the boundary to
leave the watershed and follow cultivated land instead. Nigeria dealt with these in the oral
3
pleadings •
2
3 Nigeria's Rejoinderparagraphs 7.132-7.136.
CR 2002/11 pp. 39-40, paras 107-108 (Macdonald) 4
With regard to Cameroon's claimthat Nigeriais wrong in believing that the boundary drawn by
Cameroon on its maps does not run along the watershed, but lies 2 kms to the west of the
watershed, Nigeria respectfully refers the Court to the maps submitted by .Cameroon with its
Reply. These maps show that Nigeria is correct.
1.8 Mount Kuli to Bourrha
Nigeria has not been able to understand Cameroon's comments in respect of this area. No
position is given for, and Nigeria is unaware of, the village of Watré. Nigeria has in its
4
pleadings set out its explanation for its interpretation of the ·boundaryin this area.
1.9 Source of the Tsikakiri River
Nigeria has no comments to add.
1.1o Budunga (from Mao Hesso tothe ·summit of Wamni Range)
There is no problem in identifying the summit of the Wamni range as Cameroon claims.
Although Nigeria agrees that there is a problem in identifying the locations of Boundary Pillars
6, 7 and 8, it believes that, in its pleadings, it has used the available evidence to present-a
sufficiently accurate interpretation of the boundary in this area.
1.11 Mayo Sensche (sic)
Nigeria agrees that the problem here is the representation of the watershed in this area, but
does not understand how the location·of the village of Batou could affect the position of the
boundary. The Thomson-Marchand Declaration makes no mention of it and it clearly lies on
the Nigerian side of the watershed.
4
5 Nigeria'sRejoinderand CR2002/11,pp.19-24,paras6-32(Macdonald).
Nigeria'sRejoinder,paragraphs7.145-7.168 5
Nigeria believes that no demarcation consistent with the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
could ever follow the boundary claimed by Cameroon in this area, and therefore does not
regard this simply as a demarcation problem.
1.12 Sapeo
Nigeria believes that there is no practical problem here because both sides observe the
6
boundary delimited and demarcated by Logan and Le Brun in 1930 • Cameroon includes
evidence in this respect in its own pleadings 7•
1.13 Typsan· (sic)
8
ln its oral pleadings , Cameroon by its Counsel observed that the Tipsan area "had alw,ays
.
undisputedly been considered .to be part of Cameroon, it was administered from Kontcha and
it formed - at the level of traditionalolitical structures - an integral partof Cameroon".
Nigeria does not deny that the Thomson-Marchand Declaration divides the traditional Emirate
of Kontcha. This division of traditional lands has occurred elsewhere Cl-longthe boundary, such
as at Bourha and Vola. Nonetheless the terms of the Declaration are clear, and the Tipsan
area is now on the Nigerianside of the international boundary.
Nigeria now understands that the whole issue of Tipsan has been brought before the Court by
Cameroon as a result of·anexaggerated claim to territory by the Emir of Kontchét:w , hich is in
clear contradiction of the terms of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration. Cameroon has never
explained in detail in the written pleadings or in the first round of the oral proceedings why it
does not agree with the terms of the Declaration in this area. lt has now finally done so, and
the basis for its claim to Tipsan is manifestly unsustainable.
6
7 AnnexNR 154
a Cameroon's Observations, BookIl,p. 301.
CR2002115p. 65,para.45 (Simma) 6
Cameroon claims that ''theproblem results from Nigeria's deniai of the validity of Cameroon's
title to Typsan". Nigeria (joes indeed deny the validity of Cameroon's title, which appears to be
based on a misconceived claim by a local ruler to territory lost during the colonial era.
Cameroon's claim is invalid.
Demarcation will inevitably follow the course of the Tipsan river, as Nigeria has consistently
argued throughout its written and oral pleadings 9• Nigeria has every right to locate an
immigration post at any point on its territory and this is whatit has done here. Cameroon even
10
admits that the immigration post is "indisputedly situated inNigerian territory" •
1.14 The crossing of the Maio Yin
Nigeria has no comments to add.
1.15 MountKombon
Nigeria believes that any demarcation will be inhibited by the defective nature of Article 60 of
the Thomson-Marchand Declaration. Nigeria has indeed shown that there is sufficient
information to identify the peak, but Cameroon's corriments simply serve to cause confusion:
the problem is that the readily identifiable prominent peak is not located on the watershed, as
required by theterms of Article 60.
The remainder of Cameroon's comments are a complete misrepresentation of Nigeria's
arguments, which were clearly set out in its Rejoinder (at paragraphs 7.88-7.98) and its oral
pleadings 11•Nigeria has already drawn the Court's attention to the error in the distance from
Tonn Hill to ltang Hill givenby Cameroon 12•
9
CR 98/1, pp. 24-25 (Watts), CR 98/5, p. 42 (Watts), Counter-Memorial, paras. 19.72-19.76, Rejoinder,
10 paras. 7.169-7.181, CR2002110 pp. 59-65, paras. 80-104 (Watts).
Cameroon Replyp. 193,para 4.99.
11 CR 2002/11, pp. 24-28, paras 33-52 (Macdonald).
12 CR 2002/19 p. 26, para.32 (Macdonald). 7
1.16 The areaof Lip, Yang
Nigeria has the following comments on Cameroon's answers in respect of this section of the
boundary:
(a) Cameroon does notspecify which river hasthe name Makwe. Nigeria is not aware of
any such name for a river in this area, and so can make no detailed comment.
(b) Cameroon does now appear to accept that the boundary passes through the "pillar"
established by Dr Jeffreys in 1941. Nigeria is pleased to note that this implies that
Cameroon accepts the boundary was demarcated by Dr Jeffreys at that time, and
has been observed since that date.
(c) By saying that the boundary runs ''through the pillar set up by Jeffreys and then along
a crest line", Cameroon seems to have accepted the alignmerlt for the boundary
proposed by Nigeria between the cairn andTonn Hill.
(d) Nigeria wishes the Court to be aware that Cameroon sets. out its own view of the
boundary in a west to east direction, but Cameroon sets out Nigeria's view in an east
to west direction.
1.17 Bissaula-Tosso
Cameroon appears to be alleging that the 1946 Order in Council boundary is shown on
Moisel's map of 1913. This is cleàrly a ridiculous assertion. The draftsmen of the 1946 Order
in Council used the words "an unnamed tributary of the River Akbang (Heboro on sheet E of
Moisel's map on scale 1/300,000)". These words were chosen in arder to assist in the
identification ofeRiver Akbang.
The draftsmen also omitted the numeral·from the sheet reference, which should correctly be
sheet E2. Cameroon has perpetuated this error. 8
Although Cameroon asserts that in this area the provisions of the Order in Council are
sufficiently clear for a demarcation, an assertion that Nigeria agreesCameroon persists
in ignoring the requiremento use a tributary that crosses the Kentu-Bamenda road. lt offers
no sensible explanation for thisfailure.
1.18 The River Sama
Nigeria denies that ''the Partieshave always looked to the northem tributary of the Sama as
the course of the boundary". Nigeria is unaware ofyevidence to this effect, and Cameroon
has ·provided none. Nigeria has always maintained that the southern tributary is the point
where the Sama divides in two; it is not a position taken by Nigeria since the present
proceedings began as Cameroon.alleges. Again Cameroon produces no evidence to support
its statement to the latterect.
Contrary to Cameroon's assertion that "no practical problern arisesherè", Nigeria refers-the
Court to the issues of State responsibility which both sides have raised in respect of this
general area. Nigeria believes that the problemslatingto Tosso and Mberogo derive from a
complete misunderstanding on the part of Cameroonian local officiais as to where the
boundary liesin this area.
1.19 Mberogo
Nigeria is not aware of any village or locality called Mbelogo on Cameroon's side of the
bound~ Iroyè.does exist, Cameroon hasproduced no definitive evidenceof it, apart from a
mark, without co-ordinates,na map submitted with theReply13•
Cameroon's claim that there are "severallocalities bearing identical or similarnames on either
side of theoundary" is unsupported by anyproof. Nonetheless,it is immaterial here, because
the issues raised by Nigeria concern the Nigerian village of Mberogo, as Nigeria clearly 9
demonstrated in the oral pleadings 14• This village is in Nigerian territory no matter which of
Cameroon's or Nigeria's interpretation of the boundary between the Sama River and Mount
Tosso is correct.
1.20 Pillar64
Nigeria is pleased to note that, during the course of the oral pleadings 1, Cameroon agreed
that the defective delimitation in this area, albeit a minor one, could be corrected as proposed
by Nigeria. Asa consequence, Nigeria has nofurther comments to add.
13 RCparagraphs12.36-12.37andMapR27.
14 CR200210pp. 58-59,paras 73-78(Watts).
15
CR2002/2,p. 70, para.28 (Shaw) 10
Il Additional points notee!by Cameroon
Cameroon includesas a final section of its answers sorneadditional comments on sectors of
the boundary at Dorofi, the Obudu cattle ranch and at boundary pillar 103. No evidence is
included or referred to in support of its allegations of Nigeria's breach of the terrns of the
relevant instruments. Nigeria has the following comments on these specifiepoints:
1. The question raised by Judge Fleischhauer refers only to those areas "in which
Nigeria contests the correctness of the delimitation". Nigeria doesnot in these three
instances contest the correctness of the delimitation, and therefore these areas are
beyondthe scope of the question raised by Judge Fleischhauer.
2. ln any event, Nigeria acceptsthat the terms of the relevant legal instruments (in the
case of Dorofi, the Thomson Marchand Declaration, and for Obudu and BP 103, the
April 1913 Angle-German freat}Ï) are sufficiently clear and precise to delimit the
boundaryin these areas.
3. Furthermore, the boundary delimited by the 1913 Angle-German Treaty has already
been demarcated on the ground by a number of boundary pillars. Nigeria accepts
this demarcation.Nigeria also believes that any outstanding issues in Dorofi canb~
resolvedby demarcation.
4. 1n the case of boundary pillar 1 03, the issue raised by Cameroon relates to
individuals crossing the boundary and causing damage to property. This has not
been sanétioned by Nigeria. More importantly, Nigeria does not view this as a
problem of the delimitation contained in the instruments and therefore makes no
further comment. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING
THE LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY
BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA
(Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening)
Oral. Hearings
18 February - 21 March 2002
Responses of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
to the Judges' Questions
4 April2002 1
QUESTIONS OF JUDGE FLEISCHHAUER
"1have two interrelated questions for both Parties. My questions are the fo/lowing:
How was the land boundary in those specified areas in which Nigeria contests the correctness
of the delimitation, in practice handled before and after lndependence?
ln particu/ar, where has the course of the boundary in those areas been treated as running?"
RESPONSE
1. ln Nigeria's preliminary answer to these questions 1 Nigeria noted that the 22
locations at which questions regarding the delimitation of the land boundary as
described in theThomson-Marchand Declaration or the 1946 Order in Council arose
feil into two different categories. Thirteen of them were locations at which Nigeria
itselfdiscerned defects in the very terrns of the delimitation, that is in the delimitation
as such (one of the locations in this category- BP64- is no longer in dispute, since
Cameroon accepts Nigeria's suggested interpretation for that location 2). The other 9
are locations where, so far as Nigeria is concemed, the delimitation is both clear and
adequate, but where nevertheless Cameroon has adopted positions which depart
from that clear and adequate delimitation in the relevant instrument, with the result
that Nigeria felt it necessary to draw attention to those locations.
2. ltis apparent that it is only in respect of the first 13 locations that (in the terms of
Judge Fleischhauer's questions) "Nigeria contests the correctness of the
delimitation". Nigeria will deal with those 13 locations in Part 1 of this Response.
However, ratherthan limit itself to those locations, and just in case such a reading of
CR 2002/19, pp. 36-37, paras 28-33 (Watts).
2 CR 2002/2, p. 70, para. 28 (Shaw); CR 2002/10, p. 43, para. 8 (Watts). 2
Judge Fleischhauer'squestionsis unduly strict, Nigeriawill in Part Il of this Response
cover alsothe other 9 locations.
3. ln respect of each location the questions put by Judge Fleischhauer require three
mattersto be treated:
(i) how the land boundarywas handled before lndependence;
(ii) howthe land boundarywas handled after lndependence; and
(iii) where the course of the boundary has beentreated as running.
4. ln addition Nigeria will, by way of background to its reply on those three matters,
make a brief general comment on the location, including for example relevant
population or topographiC§:I considerati(Jf)§.
5. Before answeringthe questions,it may be helpful tomake a few preliminarypoints:
{i) The boundary betweenthe mouth of the Ebeji and BP 64, a distance of 1,430
kilometres, has never beendemarcated infull.
(ii) At the time of the 1931 Declaration, pressure on land was not great and
isolated differences could more economically be solved by local meetings
involving beth parties.
(iii) lndeed, where differencesdid arise prior tc lndependence, the district officers
on the ground normally resolved the matter themselves, generally without
referring the matter back to the central administration. This system of
boundary resolution was continued after lndependence by representatives of
the local govemment areas. Thus before and after lndependence, the vast 3
majority of the burden of boundary management was devolved to local
officiais.
(iv) Visits by local district officers before lndependence to the area often resulted
in these officers showingthe local populationwhere the boundaryarea was to
run, making an ad hoc and informai demarcation. Field trip visits by the
Nigerian legal team to sorne of these areas show that these ad hoc
boundaries are still observedtoday by the local populations. 4
PART 1: Locations in which Nigeria considers the delimitation of the boundary to be
defective.
(1) The mouth of the Ebedji
(i) Nigeria's comments on the area generally are set out in full at pages 322-330 of
Nigeria's Rejoinder. The Parties agree that the Ebedji has two mouths 3, and that the
4
position of the two channels has not changed since 1931 . ln order to attempt to
resolve the dispute between the two States. as to the location of the "mouth", the
experts of the two States, within the framework of the LCBC, made a preliminary
agreement as to a point (point V) to represent the so-called mouth. However, this
point is not situated at the mouth of any watercourse, and is not agreed by Nigeria,
as being in conformity with the Thomson-Marchand Declaration.
(ii) Before lndependence the boundary in the area was left largely to the Nigerian local
authorities which regulated and taxed the fishermen of the region. Most of the
fishermen in this area came from Wulgo. To the knowledge of Nigeria, there was
never any disagreement between the States as to the location of the boundary.
(iii) After lndependence the boundary in this area continued to be handled by the
respective local authorities of Nigeria and Cameroon.
(iv) The course of the boundary in this area has been treated as running aiC:>ntg he eastern
channel. The area to the west of that channel.has always been administered by Ngala
local govemment area, and the regulation and licensing of fishing in this area has
always been carried out by Nigeria. The Court should also be aware that local Nigerian
communities, particularly from Wulgo, have fished in the waters of the north-eastern
3
4 RC paragraph 3.20 and NR paragraph 7.9
RC, paragraph 3.21 and NR paragraph 7.9 5
channel without protest from Cameroon and without any attempt by Cameroon to
regulate or tax them.
(2) Narki
(i) By way of general comment, this area is not the subject of any acrimonious dispute
between the parties. The problem arises out of the fact that the 1931 Thomson
Marchand Declaration does not define which of several watercourses, in the area
around Narki, the boundary follows.
(ii) Before lndependence, this area of the land boundary was administered by the British
and French district officers. ln particular in the period from 1921-1926, officers of the
two administrations were sent out by their respective Govemors to propose a more
detailed delimitation of the boundary than had been supplied in the Milner-Simon
Agreement of 1919. ln this area, in May 1921, officer Lethem, for Great Britain, and
his French counter-part signed a sketch map depicting the boundary agreed between
5
them in this area This boundary passes sorne 300 metres north of Limani and south
of Narki.
(iii) After lndependence, the local populations continued to observe and regulate the
boundary defined by the loca_ol fficers. Tarmoa and Narki remained Nigerian villages
under the administration of Barna Local Govemrnent Area, within Bomo State of
Nigeria. This Local Govemment Area has, since lndependence, consistently provided
water supplies, healthcare and education and other social services to the residents of
these two villages. Limani rernained under Cameroonian administration, and Nigeria
does not dispute this.
5 Annex NR 151. 6
(iv) The course of the boundary in this area has been treated as running along the
watercourse depictedin the May 1921 Angle-French agreement, leaving Tarmoa and
Narki ta Nigeria and Limani ta Cameroon, as shawn on Figure 7.4 and outlined in
paragraph 7.30 of Nigeria's Rejoinder. This has never been protested or disputed by
Cameroon,and,ta Nigeria'sknowledge,the inhabitantsco-existpeacefully.
{3) Kirawa River
(i) By way of general comment, this is an area inhabited by a large Nigerian farming
community. The boundary in this area is delimited by Article 17 of the 1931
Thomson-Marchand Declaration, but it does not define which of two branches of the
Kirawa River the boundaryfollows.
(ii) Before lridepéndencethe boundary in this area was handled by the local district
officers on the ground. lt is worth painting out that under the Milner-Simon
Declaration of 1919, depicted on Moisel's map 83 (an extract of which is at Figure
7 7 of Nigeria's Rejoinder), the boundary follows the eastern channel of the Kirawa
nver.
(iii) After lndependence, the boundary in this area has not been the subject of further
demarcation by the local govemment administrations. However, Cameroonian
farmers have encroached onto the area ta the west of the eastern channel,
presumably to take advantage of the fertile soil ofthe area.
(iv) Nigeria has treated the course of the boundary in this area as running along the
eastern channelofthe Kirawa River,asdepicted byMilner andSimon on Moisel's map
in 1919, and as set out in paragraph 7.35 of Nigeria's Rejoinder. However, local
Cameroonianfarmersappearta believethat the western channelis the boundary. 7
(4) Kohom River
(i) By way of general comment, this area is remote and relatively uninhabited. The
boundary in this area is delimited by Article 19 of the 1931 Thomson-Marchand
Declaration, which is defective because it assumes that the source of the River
Kohom is on Mount Ngossi, which is notthe case.
(ii) Before lndependence, the boundary in this area was visited by district officers
(Featherstone and his French counterpart) in March 1926, and a sketch map was
produced (Figure 7.9 of Nigeria's Rejoindef). This sketch map includes the mistaken
belief that the Kohom River rises at Mount Ngossi. The local inhabitants were told of
the position of the boundary running along the Kohom River in the direction of
Ngossi. This information hasbeen passedon through the generations.
(iii) After lndependence the boundary in this area continued to be handled by the small
number of local farmers, who continued to follow the line shawn to them by the
district officersn 1926. When the Nigerianlegal team visited the area in March 2000,
they were shawn the course of the boundary by the local village chief. This reflected
the boundary depicted on the 1926 map.
(iv) The course of the boundary in this areahas been treated as running as dep~ct ied
Figure 7.8 of Nigeria's Rejoinder, and asfurther outlined in paragraphs 7.40 and 7.41
of the Rejoinder. This has been observed on the ground since 1926, and, as far as
Nigeria is aware,. there is no dispute on the ground, although Cameroon's maps
display aline which bears no relation to either the 1926 local agreement between ·the
district officers or the terms ofthe 1931 Declaration. 8
(5) Mount Kuli to Bourha
(i) By way of general comment onthis area, the boundary here is delimited by reference
to the "incorrect lineof the watershed shawnby Moisel on his map". This section was
referred to at length in the first round of Nigeria's oral pleadings lt is a relatively
well-populated area, with seme large towns, such as Bourha (in Cameroon), and
significant farming communitieson bath sidasof the boundary.
(ii) Before Independance the boundary in this area had been handled at a local levet.
There is also evidence that there was a visit by the British and French
7
administrations ta the area in 1920 . The resulting procès-verbal stated that the
boundary should follow the centre of a track from Muti towards Bourha, and that
Bourha lies 1.5 kilometresta theeast of the frontier.
(iii) Since lndependence,the-boundary in this areahas continued to béadministéredafa
locallevel. Nigeria isnot aware of any significantdispute. See,however, section (16)
belowfor the area south of Bourha.
(iv) The course of the boundary in this area has been treated by Nigeriaas running along
the lineset out in Nigeria's Rejoinder at paragraph7.59 and depictedon Figures 7.10
and 7.11 of Nigeria's Rejoinder. lt is clear from Nigeria's counterclaims that local
Cameroonian officiaisdo not havethe sameviewpoint.
(6) Koja (Kotcha)
(i) By way of general comment, the·boundary in this area runs close to the important
Nigerianvillage of Koja(previously Kotcha), which has a largefarming population.
6 CR 2002/11, pp. 19-24, paras. 6-32 (Macdonald).
7 Annex NR 152. 9
(ii) Before lndependence the boundary in this area was handled by the local district
officers. The 1931 Thomson-Marchand Declaration itself refers to provisional
landmarks erected in 1920 by Vereker (for Great Britain) and Pition (for France).
Nigeria can confirmthat theselandmarkswere cairnsof stones,although only one has
been found. ln any event,the referenceto the landmarkssuggeststhat the boundary
deviated slightly from the watershed in the vicinity of Koja, which lies across the
watershed.
Since the 1930s,the villageof Koja has continued to expand.This process has been
unchallengedby Cameroon.
(iii) After lndependence the boundary in this area has continuedto be administeredand
maintained at a locallevel. South-westof Koja there is a cairn of stones at 10° 04'
43" North, 13° 17' 49" Eastwhich identifiesthe boundary. There does not appear to
be any dispute as to the locationof theboundary.
(iv) The course of the boundary in this area has been treated as running as set out in
Nigeria's Rejoinder at paragraphs7.62 and 7.63, andas shown·in Nigeria's Rejoinder
at Figure7.13.
(7) Source of the Tsikakiri River
(i) By way of general comment, this area is remote and a long distance from the
Nigerian road network. The problem arises here as the 1931 Thomson-Marchand
Declaration does not specify which of three possible sources of the Tsikakiri River
the boundary is supposedto follow.
(ii) Although the area is sparsely inhabited and remote, Nigeria is satisfied that the
course of the river depicted by Nigeria on Figure 7.14 of its Rejoinder formed the 10
boundary in this area. The area was visited by district officers Vereker and Pition in
the summer of 1920. They traced the course of the Tsikakiri "and carefully fix[ed] the
local boundaries". 8
(iii) After lndependence, the local people on both sides have recognised this demarcation
as the boundary and there has never been any problem reported.
(iv) Nigeria submits that the course of the boundary in this area intended by the drafters of
the 1931 Declaration for the reasons set out in paragraph 7.67 of Nigeria's Rejoinder,
has been treated as running to the southem branch of the Tsikakiri. This is set out in
full in paragraph 7.69 of Nigeria's Rejoinderand depicted on Figure 7.14 of the same.
(8) Jimbare
problem here is that the delimitation contained in the 1931 Thomson-Marchand
Declaration has a number of errors which render a demarcation virtually impossible.
These errors have been outlined in Nigeria's Rejoinder at paragraph 7.71 and were
further explained by Sir Arthur Watts in the first round of Nigeria's oral pleadings 9•
(ii) Before lndependence the boundary in this area was visited by district officers Logan,
for Great Britain, and Le Brun, for France, in 1929-1930. They acknowledged that the
proposed delimitation by the two Parties contained in the 1929 agreement (which
developed eventually into the 1931 Declaration), was impossible to demarcate. Tfiey
therefore reached agreement on a correct, amended line, which was set out in great
detail in a procès-verbal, signed on 16 October 1930. This line was shown to the
local population on the ground and has since been passed on from generation to
a Annex NR 152.
9
CR 2002/10 pp. 49-52, paras. 35-45 (Watts). 11
generation. Although the terms of the procès-verbal were not included in the 1931
Declaration, the amendment was included on the map eventually produced to
accompany the Declaration 10•
(iii) After lndependencethe boundary in this area continuedto be handled at a local leve!
by the residentfarming population. The demarcationshown to the local population in
1930 continued to be observed without dispute between the populations living on
both sides of the boundary. A field trip by Nigeria's legal team to the area in June
2000 confirmedthis information, and local resident farmers showed the team where
the boundary runs. This accorded almost precisely with the Logan-Le Brun procès-
verbal.
(iv) The course of the boundary in this area has been treated as running along the line
depicted in Figure 7.15 of Nigeria's Rejoinder for the last 70 years. The details set
out in the 1930 procès-verbal can be followed on the ground with ease, and in
particular, Kombunga Rock is readily identifiable. There is consequently no problem
on the groundbetween the parties.
(9) Sapeo
(i) By way of general comment, this area includes a substantial population living in a
number of substantial Nigerian villages, including Sapeo, Namberu, Leinde and
Jumba. Nigeria has produced evidence of its longstanding administration of this area
and of the fact that residents of Sapeo participated in the Northem Cameroons
Plebiscites of 1959 and 1961 (and were therefore considered as part of British
11
administered Cameroons) .
10
,, CR 2002/10 p. 54, paras. 52-53 (Watts).
See paragraphs 7.80 and 7.81 of Nigeria' Rejoinder and Annexes NR 156-168. 12
The problem here arises from the problematic delimitation of the 1929 Thomson
Marchand agreement and the resulting demarcation by officers Logan and Le Brun in
this area.
(ii) Before Independance the boundary in this area was visited by district officers Logan,
for Great Britain, and Le Brun, for France, in1929-1930. They acknowledged that the
proposed delimitation by the two Parties contained in the 1929 Thomson-Marchand
agreement (which developed eventually into the 1931 Declaration) was problematic.
They aIso acknowledged that Sapee was a Nigerian village administered ·by the
British. They therefore reached agreement on a correct demarcation, which was set
out in the same detailed procès-verbal, signed on 16 October 1930. This
demarcation was not only shown to the local population on the ground, but also
included a series of large cairns of stones at points along the boundary. Three at
least of these cairns remain in place today, and two were shown in Nigeria's
Rejoinder (at Plate 1) and during the oral proceedings (at Tab 39 of the Judges
Folder for the First Round). As with Jimbare immediately to the north, the terrns of
the procès-verbal were not included in the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, but the
amendment was nonetheless included on the map eventually produced to
accompany the Declaration 12•
(iii) After Independance the local population continued to observe the demarcated
boundary, and there appears never to have been any dispute about this. A field trip
by Nigeria's legal team to the area in June2000 confirrned the existence of the cairns
and the practicè of the population in respecting the Logan Le Brun procès-verbal.
12
CR 2002110 p.54, paras. 52-53 (Watts). 13
(iv) The course of the boundary in this area has been treated as running along the fine
demarcated according to the Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal, which is set out in full in
paragraph7.83 of Nigeria's Rejoinderand at Figure 7.16. There has never, to Nigeria's
knowledge,been a dispute between the two States, at a locallevel or otherwise, asto
the locationof the boundary in this area. FurthermoreSapee has been administered by
Nigeriafor over 70 years without protest, and Nigeria has produced evidence of this in
itsRejoinder.
(10) Namberu-Banglang
(i) By way of general comment, this area is demarcated by Article 38 of the 1931
Thomson-Marchand Declaration, which refers erroneously to a valley going to the
north-east and then south-east, when in fact no such valley exists. ln order to make
any sense at ali, it can only refer to a valley going north west then south west.
Furthermore the Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal of 1930, which sought to rectify this
prob!em. corrected the errer, but introduced a further problem in its reference to a
saddlein the Hosere Banglang. This is explained fully in paragraphs 7.85 and 7.86 of
Nrgena·sRejoinder.
(ii)+(iii)foreand after lndependence the boundary in this area has been administered at a
local level. lt is Nigeria's understanding that there has never been a dispute on the
groundas to the correctlocation of the boundary.
(iv) The course of the boundary in this area has always been treated as running north
west and then south west up a valley, as explained in paragraph 7.87 and depicted
on Figure7.17 and on Map 13, Book Il of Car:neroon'sReply. 14
(11) The Position of Mount Kombon
(i) By way of general comment, this area is where the 1931 Thomson-Marchand
Declaration and the 1946Order in Council meet. The terms of Articles 60 and 61 of
the 1931 Declaration are also defective: these errors have been set out in Nigeria's
13
Rejoinderat paragraphs 7.91-7.96, and during Nigeria'sfirst round oral pleadings •
Nigeria has shawn in its pleadings its method for identifying what it believes is the
"fairly prominent pointed peak" (!tang Hill). Furthermore the boundary is required ta
follow a watershed, which, due to the complicated watercourse pattern, and the
resulting fact that the watershed does not pass through ltang Hill, it cannet do.
Despite being a relatively remote area, the region nonetheless contains a large
Nigerian farming populationin the Nigerian town of Tamnyar and the small village of
Sanya.
(ii) Before lndependence-the boundary-in-this area-was ·administered-by-the··district
officers. Nigeria has no documentaryevidence of any visits to this area by the district
officers. However, thereare documents which show concem about the delimitation in
this area 1•
(iii) After lndependence, there was no further clarification of the boundary in this area.
The local population, essentially comprising Nigerians from the Mambila tribè, have
continued to regard the top of the escarpment as the boundary. This boundary,
unlike most of the rest of the Nigeria/Cameroon boundary, is a tribal boundary
betweenthe Mambila tribeon the high Mambilla Plateauand the Camerooniansfrom
the lowlands.The Nigerian populations of Sanya and Tamnyar continue ta cultivate
the farmlandson the topof the escarpmentwithout protest.
13
14 CR 2002/11 pp.24-28, paras. 33-52 (Macdonald).
Annex NR 169. 15
(iv) The course of the boundary in this area has always been treated by both Parties as
running along the escarpment, depicted in red on Figure 7.18 and described in
paragraph 7.96 of the Rejoinder.
(12) The Boundary westwards from Tonn Hill to the Mburi River
(i) By way of general comment, this area is covered by the final section of the second
schedule to the 1946 Order in Council. lt is impossible to apply the terms of that
schedule to the features on the ground.
(ii) Before lndependenŒ the boundary in this area was handled by the district offiŒrs. lt
was, of course, at that time an internai administrative boundary between the British
administration of Northem and Southem Cameroons, and not an international
boundary. Nigeria has produced evidence in its Rejoinderof a demarcation explained
to the local population by the Senior District Officer in Bamenda, Dr Jeffreys, in 1941.
Nigeria has not been able to obtain copies of the Order made by Dr Jeffreys, but a
note of a meeting in 1953 15refers to this Order and sets out the description of the
boundary contained in that Order. Cameroon itself provides evidence that this part of
the boundary is dictated by "le tracé des frontières depuis 1941 et un procès-verbal
de réunion du 13 août 1953" 1.
(iii) After lndependence and the 1961 plebiscite, the boundary in this area became an
international boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon. The local population in the
area of Lip and Yang continued to observe the boundary demarcated by Dr Jeffreys.
This is an area where there are substantial farming communities with very fertile sail,
and small local disputes have arisen between the Nigerian population of Lip and the
Cameroon population of Yang over farming rights.
15
16 Annex NR 171
Memorial of Cameroon Annex MC 258,p. 2153. 16
(iv) Exceptfor recent Cameroonian attempts at encroachment, which have been resisted
by the Nigerian population,the courseof the boundaryin this area has been treated as
running along the Jeffreys boundary which is set out in full in paragraphs 7.107 of
Nigeria'sRejoinderand depicted at Figure 7.20.
(13} Sama River
(i) By way of general comment, this area is also delimited by the 1946 Order in Council.
The schedule is unclearas to the point at which the Sama River divides into two.
(ii) Before lndependence, this area was administered by the British on beth sides of this
administrative boundary between Northern and Southem Cameroons. There was no
need here, a relatively sparsely populated area, for careful administration of the
boundaryas such.
(iii) Afterlndependencethe boundary in this area has been administered locally. There
are local disputes as to the location of the boundary, although Cameroon has
claimed villages much further to the north than the boundary shown on the maps of
beth of the Parties. lndeed, it appears that local Cameroonian officiais use the
Ga mana River as the boundary, thus provoking disputes, especially in the villages of
Tosse and Mberogo.
(iv) The course of the boundary in this area has been treated by the local Nigerian
population,initially without protest, as running to the southem tributaryflowing into the
Sama River as depicted on Figure7.21 and as stated in the text of Nigeria's Rejoinder
at paragraph7.116. 17
PART Il: Locations where Cameroon fails correctly to apply the agreed delimitation of
the boundary
(14) The Watershed from Ngossi to Roumsiki
(i) By way of general comment, this area is a long stretch of boundary running from
Ngossi at 10° 58' North, 13° 42' Eastin the north, to Roumsiki at 10° 31' North, 13°
35' East in the south. The boundary follows the watershed of the Mandara Mountains
for by far the greater part of its length in this section, as set out in Articles 20-24 of
the 1931 Thomson-Marchand Declaration. The area was discussed in detail during
Nigeria's first round oral proceedings 17.lt is also outlined in Nigeria's Rejoinder at
paragraphs 7.124-7.131.
This long boundary section is inhabited by farming communitieson bath sides of the
boundary. Nigeriabelieves that the terms of the 1931 Declarationare sufficiently clear
and preciseto demarcatethe boundaryon the ground.
(ii) Before Independancethe boundary inthis area was administeredat a locallevel, but
access to the top of the escarpment is difficult from the Nigerian sideof the boundary
as there is novehicular access.
(iii) After Independance the boundary in this area continued to be administered locally,
by the local govemment areas. ln recent years, there have been significant
Cameroon encroachments onto the Nigerian side of the watershed boundary, notably
at Turu, but also at other locations. Nigeria does not accept this encroachment onto
its territory,nd has notacquiesced in it.
17 CR 2002111 pp. 36-41, paras. 92-113 (Macdonald). 18
(iv) ln Nigeria's view the course of the boundary in this area is the watershed set out in
detail in Articles20-24 of the 1931 Declaration (with the exception of the area of
cultivation around the Nigerian village of Wula). lt is also depicted in Figure7.23-7.27
of Nigeria's Rejoinder. Nigeria adheres to this boundary and respectfully requests that
its interpretation be upheld. Cameroon, on the ether hand, does not accept the terms
of the 1931 Declaration and pleads that its interpretation of the boundary, following a
course which can in no way be said to be on the watershed, and thereby claiming over
2,000 hectares of Nigerian territory, is correct and has been accepted by Nigeria. This
is manifestly incorrect.
(15) Turu
This area has been discussed under (14) above. lt appears that Cameroon is claiming
approximately 100 hectares of Nigerian territory, and has allowed a large village to
develop, much of it to the west of the watershed boundary. Nigeria does not accept this
situation and requests that its interpretation of the watershed boundary in this area,
pursuant to Articl20 of the 1931 Thomson-Marchand Declaration, and as depicted on
Figure 7.28 of its Rejoinder, be upheld.
(16) Maduguva
(i) By way of general comment, this area is heavily populated and farmed by Nigerians.
These Nigerians have been subjected to intimidation, extortion and violence by
Cameroonian officiais, who maintain that they are on Cameroonian territory. As
Nigeria demonstrated in paragraphs 7.137-7.144 of its Rejoinder, this area. is
indisputably in Nigeria according to the terms of the1931 Declaration.
(ii) Before Independance the boundary in this area was administered on a local leve!. ln
the colonial era, the boundary was visited by local district officers, Larrymore and Petit, 19
18
in 1920 ,and they assigned villages in the area to each country. Maduguva was
clearly assigned to Great Britain.
(iii) Since lndependence there has been increased local interest in the boundary
because the Cameroonian local chief of Bourha is claiming areas placed within
Nigeria as a result of the 1931 Declaration, and threatens Nigerian farmers in the area
of Maduguva, extorts money from them, steals their property and destroys crops. This
has been the subject of a number of complaints at a local level, and now at central
level. lt has also formed part of a counterclaim by Nigeria as set out in paragraphs
25.50-25.57 of Nigeria's Counter-Memorial and Counterclaim CC22 at page 743 of
Nigeria's Rejoinder.
(iv) Nigeria has always regarded the boundary as following the watershed south of Bourha,
thereby attributing Maduguva to Nigeria. This complies with the requirements set out in
Article 25 of the 1931 Declaration. Cameroon, however, argues that the traditional ruler
of Bourha claims this land as part of his original area of jurisdiction. This does not
comply with the terms of the 1931 Declaration. Nigeria does not accept the
Cameroonian contention and has protested about the intimidation and violence carried
out by Cameroonian officiais against the Nigerian population living and farming to the
west of the watershed boundary.
(17) BP6-Wamni
(i) By way of general comment on this area, it is relatively uninhabited (except around
boundary pillar 6). This section of the boundary marks the point where the boundary
leaves a long section of riverine boundary and moves on to join a long section of
watershed boundary.
18 AnnexNR 152.
-. 20
(ii)+(iii) Before and after Independance the boundary in this area was handled on a local level.
The boundary was demarcated in 1900 by the Angle-German boundary commission,
which established boundary pillar 6, on the bank of the Maie Hesso, and boundary
pillars 7 and8 on small hills. No firm evidence of these three boundary pillars remains.
Nigeria has not been able to find any .evidenceof additional visits by local officers since
that date, until recent visits by members from Nigeria's National Boundary
Commission, whowere unableto find anytrace of the old boundary pillars.
(iv) The course of the boundary in this area has always been treated as running from the
point on the Maie Hesse, north of Beka, which is shown on Figure 7.30 of Nigeria's
Rejoinder, and which used to be marked by a boundary pillar. lt then runs in a
straight Jine, as indicated on Moisel's map sheet D3, through boundary pillar 7 to
boundary pillar8, before it travels in a straight Jineto the summit of the Wamni range,
as required by Article 34 of the 1931 Thomson-Marchand Declaration. This is
depicted in detail in Figures 7.30 and 7.31 of Nigeria's Rejoinder. Nigeria confirms
that this is the location observed by the local population on both sides of the
boundary.
Cameroon's interpretation, on the ether hand, does not comply with the terms of
Articles 33 and 34 of the 1931 Declaration, as it starts at a point far to the north of the
correct departure point on the bank of the Maie Hesse and does not run in a straight
line or in the rightdirection to tbe summitof the Wamni Range.
(18) Maio Senche
(i) By way of general comment, this area of the boundary is covered by Article 35 of the
1931 Thomson-Marchand Declaration. lt is clearly described as a watershed 21
boundary. lt is also very remote and inaccessible. The population is scarce in this
are a.
(ii)+(iii) Before and after Independance, because of the remoteness of the location, the
boundary in this area has not been managed actively. lt is too remote for district
officers before Independance, or local govemment officiais after Independance, to visit
and maintain the boundary. However, because the boundary in this vicinity is a
straightforward watershed boundary, Nigerian officiais have not considered it
necessary to concentrate scarce resources on supervising it Nonetheless the Nigerian
district head of Nassarawo-Koma confirms that the village marked Batou on Figure
7.33 of the Rejoinderis known locally as Batodi Dampti, and is a village in his domain.
The villagers there pay taxes to the district head, Mallam Hamanjoda Abba. ln 1985,
there was a visit to the area by the then Military Govemor, Colonel Yohanna Madaki,
together with local govemment officiais. As a result of that visit, the local Govemment
set up a special project called the Koma People Development Programme, to assist in
the welfare of the people in the boundary area, including Batodi Dampti.
(iv) The course of the boundary in this area has been treated by Nigeria as running along
the watershed, as depicted in Figure 7.33 of its Rejoinder, and further outlined during
the oral proceedings 1• Cameroon, on the other hand, takes the boundary off the
watershed, to follow a series of streams, thereby attributing to Cameroon the small
village of Batou (Batodi Dampti) and sorne 1,200 hectares of land territory.
19 CR 2002/11 p.34 paras. 79-82 (Macdonald). 22
(19) Tipsan
(i) By way of general comment, a dispute over Tipsan was raised by Cameroon in its
Application and relied on by it as evidence of Nigeria's hostile incursions along the
boundary, and therefore allegedly as proof that Nigeria did not accept the delimitation
instruments. Nigeria has discussed the issue of Tipsan many times in its written and
oral pleadings 20• Nigeria has explained with great care and in great detail the
relatively simple fact that the Nigerian village of Tipsan lies on the Nigerian side ·of
the line provided for by the 1931 Thomson-Marchand Declaration. The terms of the
Declaration in this area are very clear. Cameroon has made claims that Nigeria is
violating the terms of the Declaration in this area. This is patently not the case.
Furthermore, Cameroon has consistently attempted to mislead the Court, and has
made contradictory claims as to where it believes the boundary runs in this area.
Cameroon has nevertheless new accepted that the immigration post is "indisputedly
situated in Nigerian territory'•
(ii)+(iiBefore lndependence the boundary in this area was administered by district officers.
The colonial powers agreed that France, now Cameroon, would be allowed to retain
the Bare-Fort Lamy track within its territory, and therefore placed the boundary
2 kilometreswest of this track. This is reflected intl')e1931 Declaration.The di~is of on
territory divided the emirate of Kontcha. After lndependencethe boundary in this area
continued to be handled at a local level.Tipsan becamean issue only when Cameroon
protested againstNigeria's building an immigration post on its side of the boundary on
the roadfrom Toungo to Kontcha.
20 CR 98/1, pp. 24-25 (Watts), CR 98/5, p. 42 (Watts), Counter-Memorial paragraphs 19.72-19.76,
Rejoinder, paras. 7.169-7.181, CR 2002/10 pp. 59-65, paras. 80-104 (Watts)
21 Cameroon Reply p. 193, para 4.99. 23
(iv) The .course of the boundary in this area has always been treated by Nigeria and
Nigerians as running in accordance with the terms of the 1931 Declaration, which are
clear and can be easily implemented on the ground. lt is depicted on Figure 7.34 of
Nigeria's Rejoinder.
Cameroon, on the other hand, has offered no explanation as to why it refuses to agree
that the boundary in this area follows the clear terms of the 1931 Declaration.
(20) The Mburi River to the old Franco-British Frontier
(i) By way of general comment, this area has been dealt with in (12) above. lt is
appropriate here only to add a few additional points. The course of the boundary in
this area has been treated as running along the Jeffreys boundary, which was told to
the local residents in .1941, confirmed at a local meeting in August 1953 and has
been observed on the ground since that date. The course of the boundary is depicted
on Figure 7.37 of Nigeria's Rejoinder and is described in detail in paragraphs 7:99-
7.111 of the Rejoinder. lt was further described during the course of the oral
22
proceedings .
Cameroon's claim in this area bears no relation to the course of the boundary
described with errors in the 1946 Order in Council and defined more precisely by the
local district officer, Jeffreys, in 1941.
(21) Bissaula-Tosso
(i) By way of general comment, the course of the boundary in this area is clearly
described by the Second Schedule to the 1946 Order in Council. Nigeria has set out
in detail the course of the boundary in paragraphs 7.188-7.196 of the Rejoinder and
22 CR 2002111 pp.28-32, paras. 53-74 (Macdonald). 24
depicted it in Figure 7.38 of the Rejoinder. Nigeria gave a further explanation during
23
the course of the oral hearings •
The area is remote and sparsely populated, but the area to which the dispute between
the Parties relates is very large, encompassing approximately 7,500 hectares.
(ii) Before lndependence the boundary in this area was an internai administrative
division between British administered Northern and Southern Cameroons. Since the
area was not an international boundary and was sparsely inhabited, the boundary
area was, to an extent, neglected by the local officiais. Nigeria can find no reference
to any visits by the district officers.
However, records show that the area was visited by surveyors from the Directorate of
Overseas Surveys in the early 1950s. Surveyors from Southem Cameroons travelled
as far as Garamayu hill (shawn near the source of the southem tributary on Figure
7.38 in Nigeria's Rejoindel]. This was the northem extent of the area within their remit,
and confirmsthe position taken by Nigeriaas to the position of the boundary.
(iii) After lndependence the boundary in this area was administered, to an extent, by the
local govemment officiais. However, the remoteness of the location made the
maintenance and supervision of the boundary difficult.
(iv) The course of the boundary in this area has been treated by Nigeria as running from
the peak of Mount Tosse in a straight lineto the only point on the Kentu-Bamenda road
where it is crossed by a tributary of the Akbang river, as it is required to under the
terms of the 1946 Order in Council. This is depicted in Figure 7.38 of Nigeria's
Rejoinder. Cameroon, on the other hand, takes the boundary from Mount Tasso to a
point on the Kentu-Bamenda road where there is no tributary crossing.
23
CR 2002/11 pp. 34-36, paras. 83-91 (Macdonald). 25
(22) Mberogo
(i) By way of general comment, this area has been described under (13) above. lt is
covered by the terms of the Second Schedule of the 1946 Order in Council. lt is an
inhabited area, but the erroneous understanding of the boundary by local
Cameroonian officiais has resulted in a dispute arising between the two States. This
24
has raised issues of international responsibility between Nigeria and Cameroon •
(ii) Before lndependence the boundary in this area was an administrative division
between the British administered Northem and Southem Cameroons. The area was
not an international boundary, and Nigeria can find no reference to any visits by the
district officers to the area.
(iii) After lndependence the boundary in this area continued to be maintained by local
govemment officers. lt is remote and sorne distance from the local govemment
headquarters. lt cannat be reached by car, and so visits to the area have to be made
on foot or by motorcycle.
(iv) The course of the boundary in this area has always been treated as running according
to the description given in paragraphs 7.112-7.116 and depicted in Figure 7.39 of
Nigeria's Rejoinder. Cameroon has a different understanding of the position of the
boundary. ln any event, local Cameroonian officiais do not observe even Cameroon's
own interpretation of the boundary in this area, and raid the Nigerian villages of Tossa
and Mberogo, extorting money and arresting and detaining Nigerian inhabitants. This
raises
serious issues of international responsibility on the part of Cameroon. Cameroon tries
to argue that there are ether Cameroonian villages in the area called Tasso and
24 See Nigeria's Counter-Memorial, paragraphs 25.58-25.63, and Rejoinder CC 23, pages 744-746. 26
Mberogo,butprovidesnoevidencefor these,andindeedthe allegedsituationof "their"
Tosso,onthe highestpointof MountTosso, isridiculous.Theirargumentsin respectof
this area are refuted indetail in paragraphs7.197-7.204of Nigeria'sRejoinderand at
CR2002/10pp.57-59,paras.67-79(Watts). 27
QUESTIONS OF JUDGE KOOIJMANS
"/ have the fol/owing three interrelated questions for the Respondent State:
1. Can the Respondent indicate how often and on what kind of occasions the Kings and
Chiefs of Old Ca/abar as a separate entity had formai contacts with the Protecting
Powerafterthe conclusion of the 1884 Treatyon Protection?
2. Were the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar consulted when the Protecting Power in
1885 incorporated their territory in the British Protectoratef the Niger Districts (see
Counter-Memorial of Nigeria, para. 6.66) which in tum had become part of the
Protectorate of Southem Nigeria when the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty was
concluded? If the answer is no, why were they not consulted? Ifthe answer is yes,
what was their reaction and is their reaction contained ia forma/ document?
3. Did that incorporation bring to an end the purported international personality of the
Kings and Chiefs of 0/d Ca/abar as a separate entity? If not, when did it cease to
exist?"
RESPONSE
1. ln the second round of the oral hearings, on 14 March, Nigeria gave a preliminary
response to the questions put to Nigeria by Judge Kooijmans.
Background
2. Judge Kooijmans' first two questions concemed the extent of any consultation with
the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar in the years following the conclusion of the
Treaty of Protection of 1884.. ln seeking to provide an answer to those questions,
two background points need to be made, conceming
(i) the arrangements for making and preserving records, and
(ii) the legal nature of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. 28
(i) The making and·preservation of records
3. First,dealings with the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar will almost exclusively have
taken place locally, in what for convenience will be referred to as Nigeria (even
though that is not strictly accurate for the early part of that period). Any records
relating,for example (to take Judge Kooijmans'first question), to occasionswhen the
Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar as a separate entity had formai contacts with the
Protecting State after the conclusion of the Treaty of Protection, will have originally
beenprepared, produced and held locally.
4. Thus they will at first have been in Old Calabar (which in due course became the
modem town of Calabar), or then in Lagos- for although Lagos and its immediate
surrounding area was itself a colony and was thus always constitutionally distinct
fromthe Protectorate, it was, afterabout 1906,the centre of British administrationfor
the whole of Nigeria. British practice regarding its administration of its overseas
territorieswas generally not to transfercomplete sets of local records backto London
- either at the time or later, for example upon lndependence. If something was
sufficientlyimportantfor the localGovemor formally to send a report backto London,
then it will probably have survived in the Foreign Office or Colonial Office archives
which are new in the Public Record.Office at Kew. But even the archives of
Govemment Ministries in Londonwere not ali transferred eventually to Kew: they ali
went through a process of "weeding", and many have been lest. in that way -
especially when it is borne in mind that those doing the weeding were not lawyers
thinking about what might later be relevant to sorne as yet unknown legal
proceedings, but archivists and administrators whose main concem was with the
historicalsignificance or otherwise of the papers being kept or, as the case may be,
destroyed. 29
5. However, even if destroyed, the original existence of the documents will nearly
always be evident from the entries in the Indexes of archives: but while the Indexes
will, by the title given tc the document, revealwhat a destroyed documentwas about,
they will not indicate in any greater detail than that what its content was. ln
particular, a document indexed as dealing with one subject might weil have included
material relevant to another line of enquiry, and the former existence of that material
will no longerbe apparent just from the document's indexed title.
6. Most British records of meetings between British officiais and the local people in the
Calabar regionwould in any event have meritedno morethan preservationin Calabar
or Lagos. They would, in the normal case, be kept for only a limited time - perhaps
severa! years, but certainly not for severa! decades. As for recordswhich may have
been made by the Kings and Chiefs themselves, they are unlikely to have been as
bureaucratically-mindedas the British officiaiswere, and such written records as they
may have made of their dealings with the British are perhaps even more unlikely tc
have beenkept by themfor very long, if at ali.
(ii) The Kingsand Chiefsof Old Calabar
7. The second background point is that the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar were not,
as Nigeria pointed out in itsCounter-Memorial, a simple unitary entity. They wère, as
there described, something like what today we might classify as a loose federation.
There were a number of Kings and Chie'fs,having in common that ·they had their
territorialase in and around the area of Old Calabar, and acting more and more, in
an evolutionary process which is quite common, under the paramountcy of one of
their number. 30
8. Nigeria has now undertaken further research, and has in particular had the
opportunity of discussing these matters with the current Obong of Calabar, His
Majesty Edidem (Professer) Nta Elijah Henshaw VI. ln the light of the further
information now available, particularly that recently provided by His Majesty, Nigeria
can amplify the information previously given to the Court to the extent necessary to
provide a full answerto Judge Kooijmans'questions.
9. Historically, in the area around Old Calabar there were a number of localities, each
with its own distinct territorial base. Each of these had its own King or Chief. The
Kings were called, in the Efik language, Obongs or Edidems, the former being a
degree of kingshipwhich involvedan element of being God's representative on earth,
while the latter was also a degree of kingship but without that additional element
which entitled the King to be treated as having "Majesty" and thus to be address as
"HisMajesty" or ''our Majesty".
10. The severa! Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar traced their origins back for sorne
centuries. There is a record of 10 of the Kings of Old Calabar having commercial
25
relations with British tradersJohn Barbot, James Barbet and Snelgrave in 1698 •
11. By the last half of the nineteenth century there were a number of Kings and Chiefs.
They had in common that their territorial bases were in the region around Old
Calabar. The various Kings and Chiefs had jurisdiction and power over their
particular territories - significant towns in the case of the more important among
them.
25
John BarbotA Description of the Coasts of North and South Gp.465, edited by PEH Haïr,
Hakluyt Society, 1992, vop.705. 31
12. The Kings and Chiefs selected a paramount King from among their number: he was
the most senior among them, andwas known as the King of Old Calabar, and later
King of Calabar. Where it was appropriate for them to act together as a single unit,
whether for domestic purposes or to deal from a position of unity and strength with
outside Powers, they came ·together for that purpose, under the leadership of
whichever among theirnumber wasthe paramount King for the time being.
13. However, on matters where it was appropriate for them to act on their own in their
dealings with other communities - whether other Kings and Chiefs, or other States -
they did so. Thus a number of the treaties cited in Nigeria's Counter-Memorial were
concluded with only one of the Kings and Chiefs, as most relevant for the particular
subject-matter of the Treaty. But it is to be noted that a Treaty concluded with the
King of Old Calabar was normally a Treaty concluded for the whole Kingdom.
14. lt was on this basis that when, in 1884, the Kings and Chiefs needed to constitute a
single unitin order to bethe one partyto a Treaty of Protection to which Great Britain
was the other party, they acted together. As Nigeria showed in its Counter-Memorial
26
and during the first round of the oralhearings , in concluding that Treaty steps were
also taken expressly to bring within its ambit a number of local Kings and Chiefs who
were subject to the jurisdictionandauthority of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar.
15. The arrangements for the choice of King of Old Calabar were informai, and were
based essentially on age, the oldestbeing regarded as the most senior. This did not
always produce a smooth succession, and in particular in 1879, following the death
of King Archibong Ill, there was fo'ra time sorne confusion before his successor, King
Duke Ephraim Eyamba IX, was chosen. He reigned until 1890, but there was then
26 CR 2002/8, p.45, para 30 (Watts); also NC-M, para 6.33, pp. 93-94. 32
more confusion,· and in fact a gap of severa! years during which there was no
paramount King (although, of course, ali the local Kings and Chiefs continued ta play
their severa! raies as the traditional rulers). The Kings and Chiefs decided ta make
different arrangements for the choiceoftheir paramount King, and in 1902 formalised
new arrangements whereby the Kings and Chiefs elected their paramount King from
among their number ta be the Obong of Calabar; the remaining Kings and Chiefs
were thenceforth styled Etuboms.Whilst retaining their traditional authority, they also
became members of the Obong's Court. This is the systemwhich govems the choice
ofObongs ta this day. ft has not been without its difficulties, and at times there have
been considerable periods when the manoeuvrings were prolonged and intricate,
leading to there being no Obong for a number of years. As before, however, the
Kings and Chiefs - the Etuboms - stiJlcontinued to function as the traditional rulers of
their separate territories, and were stiJlcapable of acting together, even though they
.wouId-then have to-make ad hoc arrangementsfor doing so:-·--- --- -·--
16. Thus the Obongs of Calabar trace their ruling authority in the office of Obong (as at
present organised) back to the establishment of the new arrangements introduŒd at
the beginning of the twentieth century, but their authority as King or Chief of one of
the local territorial units goes backsevera! centuries.
17. These arrangements were known to, and endorsed by, the British authorities.
Evidence from the Public RecordOffice in Kew, London, shows that during the British
Protectorate, traditional organs of public order and administration continued to
27
function .
27
See FO 881/5260 p.190 and FO 881/6471pp.245-247. 33
18. During the period of British Protectorate until 1960, it was usual for the Obong of
Calabar to use the title Edidem, still (as explained above) meaning King but without
the overtones of "Majesty" which was implicit in the title of Obong. This was so as to
avoid the simultaneous existence of beth a Britannic "Majesty" in Great Britain, and
the Obong's "Majesty" in Nigeria. After independence in 1960 this reasoning no
longer applied, and the Obong then, and now, became once again properly known as
"His Majesty the Obong of Calabar".
19. ·ln summary, the Kings and Chiefs acted as a unit, or as their separate constituent
territories,as circumstancesdictated. As can be seen, there are considerable elements
in their mutual relationship which resemble the structure of a modem federation. As a
federation itwas beth loose and informai, but itwas nevertheless real - they constituted
a community which was even more integrated, cohesive and permanent than simply, to
28
use the words of the Court in the Western Sahara Advisory Opinion , a community
"socially and politically organised in tribes and under chiefs competent to represent
them". lt has been acknowledged that the conclusion by local rulers of treaties of
protection, like that of 1884, "constitutes a recognition of personality both of the ruler
and of the people concemed" 29.
28 ICJReports1975,at p.39, para80.
29 Shaw,Trtleto TerritorvinAfrica:InternationalLegal Issues(1986),p.37:quotedatNC-M,para6.20,p.88. 34
Question 1
20. The first question asked "how often and on what kind of occasions the Kings and
Chiefs of Old Calabar as a separate entity had formai contacts with the Protecting
Power after the conclusion of the 1884Treaty of Protection".
21. So far as Nigeria has been able to discover, recordswhich would enable the question
to be answered comprehensively no longer exist, either in London, or in Calabar or
Lagos, or in the National Archives in Enugu cr Ibadan. However, sorne records have
been traced, showing severa! occasions in.the years after 1884 when there were
formai contacts between the Kings andChiefs andthe British authorities.
22. ln January 1885 the British Consul, Hewitt, gave a decision in a local dispute
involving certain of the local chiefs-e in Old Calabar, apparently involving the
30
possession of property and an outbreakof hostilitiesarising in that connection. The
Consul's decision involved the impositionof certain penalties and a requirementthat
certain specified procedures should be followed. He then stated: ''The enforcement
of my decision according to the treaty with England tast concluded, is to be made by
the Kings and chiefs, but 1hope there will be no occasion to cali on them to do this."
This shows both the application of the terms of the Treaty of Protection, and the
continuing roteof the Kings and Chiefsafter the conclusionof the 1884 Treaty.
23. There is a record in the Public Record Office at Kew of sorne correspondence in
1887 in which a Mr G Turner, writing apparently on behalf of a number of people
(including·Prince Eyamba, and. Thomas Yellow Duke), set out a number of
complaints about the misbehaviour and internai squabbling of a number of the local
chiefs. He enclosed with his letter a copy of a paper made by the British Consul,
30 Public Record Office: FO 84/1740, ff. 123-124. 35
MrHewitt, "for the better government of their country submitted to the Kings and
Chiefs of Old Calabar''. That paper consisted of "suggestions and recommendations"
made by Mr Hewitt "to the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar at a meeting held at the
31
British Consulate, Old Calabar, on the 14th February, 1887". Even though
MrTurner statedthat the Kings and Chiefs didnot accept the paper, the paper shows
clearly that in 1887 the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar were regarded as the
appropriate channel for communications of the kind in question between them and
the British authorities; the paper also shows thatthe meeting on 14 February was not
an isolated meeting, since the paper records that that meeting was adjourned until
15 March.
24. Also available in the Public Record Office is a long report, dated 1 September 1891,
from Major MacDonald, the British Consul-General, to Lord Salisbury, the Secretary
2
of State for Foreign Affairs.S The report recorded a visit which the Consul-General
paid to a number of areas within his district, in arder to explain sorne new British
proposais for the imposition of customs dutiesand to obtain the consent of the local
rulers. So far as relevant in the present context it is to be noted that the Consul-
General had in advance arranged a "meeting of the Old Calabar Chiefs". He
"received King Duke, and the ether, so-called Kings, and Chiefs of Old Calabar, in ·
Durbar''. Quite apart from the immediate business of the customs proposais, the
Kings and Chiefs wished also "to speak to me on one or two subjects which they
hoped 1would represent to Her Majesty's Govemment", and the Consul-General
accepted that that was appropriate, although better done at a later date. At the end
of his visit the Consul-General secured a Declaration signed by King Duke IX and 26
othersgiving their consentto the imposition ofthe customs duties inquestion (text on
31 FO 881/5588,pp.200-202 othe print
32 FO 881/6351, pp. 39-43 of the print (Annex 1). 36
final page of Annex 1): the Declaration was in the name of "the Undersigned, Kings,
Chiefs, and Headmen of the Old Calabar and district", and it was attested, and the
translation certified, by documents referring to "the Old Calabar Chiefs" and "the
Kingsand Chiefs of the Old Calabar district". This report shows that, with this kind of
official business, it was considered normal by the British authorities to use the Kings
and Chiefs of Old Calabar as the proper channel for official consultations, and that
the Kings and Chiefs beth continued to exist as a distinctive body and were ready to
assumethe function envisaged for them.
25. A further occasion which Nigeria would recall in this context is the visit to London in
1913 of certain of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. 33 ln that year the Kings and
34
Chiefs made strong representations at what they saw as a British proposai to
amendthe system of indigenous land tenure applicable in south eastern Nigeria (an
areawhich, of course, included Bakassi). The Kings and Chiefs sent a representative
delegation tc London tc pursue the question - no small matter at that time. They
gave evidence to the Parliamentary Committee which had been established to
examine the land tenure question in a number of African States, and a question was
asked on their behalf in Parliament The delegation was sent by Eyo Honesty VIII,
Obongof Catabar, together with his Council of Etuboms. The delegation consisted of
sorne 20 members: the two leading members of the delegation were Prince Sassey
Duke Ephraim IX (a member of the Native Council of Calabar and a son of the late
KingDuke) and Prince James Eyo lta VIl, Chief of Creek Town and grandson of King
Eyo.
33
CR2002/19,p.47,para64 (Watts);NC-M,para9.3(5)-(6), pp.179-180.
34 Thisappearsevidentfromthe report carrieThe AfricanMailatp. 433 ("in ... SouthernNigeriathere is
widespreadexcitementand unrestin viewofthe propositionofthe Crownto take overali lands").See also
E.E.OkuThe Kingsand Chiefsof0/d Ca/abar(1785-1925)GladTidings Press, 1989,pp.234-237.A copy
waslodgedatthe Courtwiththe Counter-Memorial 37
26. As stated in Nigeria's Counter-Memorial, there is no documentary evidence available
to show that the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar knew of, or discussed in London,
the Angle-German Treaty of March 1913. However, from what His Majesty the
Obong has recently told Nigeria, it is probable that when the delegation set out for
London they were aware of rumeurs about a treaty which would give away their lands
(i.e. Bakassi) having recently been concluded with Germany in London (they left
35
Nigeria separately but assembled in London on 30 May 1913 ,just over two months
after the conclusion of the Treaty on 11 March). This could explain the last part of
the question asked in Parliament on their behalf, which was (with the significant
passage underlined) whether "... the Govemment proposes to transfer the ownership
of land in Southem Nigeria from the native communities to the Crown or to
dispossess the natives of their land". 36 The Minister's reply- that "the Govemment
have never made, and never entertained, and would not entertain such a proposai" -
would then have seemed a sufficient reassurance to the delegation, duplicitous
though the reply might now be shown to have been. lt would have led the Kings and
Chiefs not to pursue the matter further, and then about a year after their retum to
Nigeria in late July 1913, the outbreak of the First World War on 3 August 1914
would have made further conŒm on their part apparently unnecessary.
· 27. Whether or not the delegation pursued the matter of the 1913 Treaty in London in
addition to the land tenure question, the episode clearly shows that the Kings and
Chiefs continued to exist as a separate entity and were the appropriate entity for
pursuing matters of importancewith the Britishauthorities.
35
36 The Weekly News, 19 July 1913, p. 7.
NC-M, para 9.3(5), p. 179, and Annex NC-M 110. 38
Question2
28. Judge Kooijmans' secondquestionwas whether the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar
were "consulted whenthe ProtectingPower in 1885 incorporated their territory in the
British Protectorate of the Niger .. which in tum had become part of the
Protectorate of Southem Nigeria when the 1913 Angle-German Treaty was
concluded". If the answer was "no", JudgeKooijmanswanted to know why they were
not consulted; and ifthe answerwas "yes"he wantedto know what their reaction was
and whetherit wascontainedina formaidocument.
29. The text of the Proclamationof 5 June 1885 is at Annex 2. lt is to be noted that this
Proclamation was made not only a year after the conclusion of the 1884 Treaty of
Protection, but just a month after the conclusion of the Angle-German Exchange of
Notes of 29 April-7 May 1885 establishing the Rio del Rey as the limit of the two
·---.States~o -fsiphteerr----ts--.~
30. Again, the possible consultation between the Kings and Chiefs and Great Britain
about the Proclamation is a matter about which Nigeria haso definitive
documentary evidenceeither way. So far as Nigeria has been able to discover, the
records which would enable the question to be answered simply no longer exist,
either in London, or in Calabar or Lagos, or Abuja. lt seems likely that it will prove
impossible to say with any certainty, supported by documentary evidence, that the
Kingsand Chiefs werenot consulted, and why, or that they were consulted and their
answer was such andsuch.
37
NC-M,paras7.5-7.7, pp.130-132,andAnnexNC-M24. 39
31. His Majesty the Obong has however told Nigeria that the Kings and Chiefs were
made fully aware of the Proclamation, and had no difficulties with it. So far as they
were concemed it in no way diminished their lands. They were content that the
Protection by Her Majesty's Govemment would continue and would extend as far as
the Rio del Rey, thereby including ali the territory under their sovereignty. There was
therefore no reason for the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar to comment
unfavourably. lndeed, they seem to have regarded it, at least potentially, as giving
them authority over sorne of the adjacent territories which were subject to other
Protectorate treaties with other local rulers. Furthermore, a letter from Mr Lister ofhe
Foreign Office to Acting ConsulWhite on 13 May 1885 38 requests that he
"will take steps at once to notify to ali the Chiefs to the east of the [recently
concluded Angle-German Treaty] line [in the Rio del Rey] that the Treaties
concluded with them for the Protectorate of Great Britain have not been
accepted by Her Majesty's Govemment; ...You will, at the same time, take
steps to make it generally known among the Chiefs to the west of the line that
the Emperor of Germany would not accept offers on their part to place
themselves under the protection of the German flag."
32. lt is thus clear that the Kings and Chiefs were also informed about the Angle-German
Agreement of 1885which extended the British Protectorate up to the Rio del Rey.
33. To that it should be added that under English law there was no requirement that the
rulers of the Protectorate territories had to be consulted before a Proclamation could
be made unifying in one Protectorate the various British Protectorates existing in
Nigeria at the time. Consequently there was no need in English law for the
Proclamation to recite that such consultation had taken place, and accordingly, ifit
had indeed taken place, it was not the kind of matter which would necessarily have
had to be formally reported backto London.
38 FO 881/5161, p. 67 of the print 40
Question 3
34. Judge Kooijmans' third question was whether the incorporation of the territory of the
Kingsand Chiefs ofOld Calabar into the British Protectorate of the Niger Districts did
"bring to an end the purported internationalpersonality of the Kingsand Chiefs of Old
Calabaras a separateentity", and "If not, when did it cease to exist".
35. Nigeria'spreliminary answer to the main body of that question was"no". After further
research, Nigeria confirms that preliminaryanswer.
36. The unification of certain protectorate territories did not result in the instant
disappearance of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. While for British
administrative purposes there may have been - indeed, presumably was -
convenience in treating ali the protectorateterritories as one, this is not the same as
saying that the protected communities legally lost their distinct legal personalities.
Those distinct personalities remained, subject to the rights and obligations set out in
their respective treaties of protection. This is further evidenced by the fact that up to
1893the British representatives continuedto make treaties of Protection with various
39
Chiefswithin the Niger Coast Protectorate •
37. The continuation in law of those treaties of protection, and thus of the original parties
to them and their successors in title, was a notable feature of the British legislation
right up to the time of lndependence. As Nigeria has shawn in its Counter
Memoriaf0, British.legislative action in relation to Nigeria always, right through to
Independance in 1960, distinguished carefully and consistently between the colony
of Lagos, and the Protectorate of Nigeria. The Nigerian Protectorate was dealt with
39
40 See HertsleaThe Map of Africby Treaty " 3rd ed. 1967, pp.124-154.
NC-M,para6.58,p.107; para6.72, pp.117-118; paras6.79-6.80, pp.121-122. 41
41
under the terms of the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts , which permitted Orders in Council
to be made where the British Crown had acquired power and jurisdiction in a foreign
territory "by Treaty, Capitulation, Grant, Usage, Sufferance, and other lawful means".
38. ln relation to the Nigerian Protectorate this enactment was applied in a succession of
Orders in Council: see for example, Article Ill of the Southem Nigeria Protectorate
42
Order in Council 1911 • They included a definition of the term "treaty" for the
purposes of the Orders. So far as presently relevant, the term "treaty" was defined so
that it
"includes any treaty, convention, agreement or arrangement, made on behalf of
43
[the Crown] with ... any Native tribe, people, chief,or king".
That definition clearly covers the 1884 Treaty of Protectionwith the Kings and Chiefs of
Old Calabar. Moreover, the Orders in Council typically 44included a statement that the
rights secured to the protected community by any treaties or agreements could not be
derogated from by ordinances, and that
"ali such treaties and agreements shall be and remain operative and in force,
and ali pledges and undertakings therein contained shall remain mutually
binding on ali parties to the same".
39. This formula continued to be used in the Protectorate Orders in Council right up to
independence in 1960. lt confirms that the legal existence of the Treaty of Protection
1884, and thus of the parties to it (i.e. including the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar),
remained "operative and in force" until, and only came to an end with, the attainment
of lndeper-tdencein 1960.
41 NC-M,paras6.73-6.80,pp.118-122.
42 Annex NC-M,44.
43
44 The fulltextis in Nigeria'sCounter-Memorial,para8.46,p. 165,andatAnnexesNC-M44 and53.
Nigeria'sCounter-Memorial,para 8.47,pp. 165-166,and AnnexesNC-M44, 53. 42
40. lt is not possibleto say with clarityand certainty what happened to the international
legal personality of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar after 1885. Certainly, the
Kings and Chiefs, organised in the manner described above at paragraphs 7-18,
continued to function as the traditional rulers of their territories around Calabar, as
they do to thisday.
41. ln the case concerning Rights of Nationals of the United States in Morocco the 45
Court held that the international personality of Morocco had continued
notwithstanding the French Protectorateover Moroccoestablished by the Treaty of
Fez 1912. The situationwith whichthe Court was dealingwas such that the Court's
finding applied to the status of Morocco in 1948. The Treaty of Fez 46gave France
more extensivepowersand authority over and in relationto Morocco than the Treaty
of Protection1884 47 gave Great Britain over and in respectof the Kings andChiefs of
Old Calabar.
48
42. ln the Western Sahara case ,the Court's finding in relation to the international
personality of the nomadic tribes whose status was in question related to the year
1884. Those tribes had previously entered into various Protectorate treaties with
Spain. Examplesof those treaties are given in the published Pleadings in that case.
Again, the Court's finding that the tribes had at Jeast sufficient international
personality in 1884 to have title to their lands means that they continued to have
such personality at least that long after the conclusion of the various treaties of
protection.
45 ICJReports 1952,p.176.
46 ICJ Pleadings,RightsofNationalof the United StatofAmerica in Morocco (France v. USAVol. 1,
p. 650.
47 The textis atNC-M,Annex23.
48 ICJ Reports 1975,p. 39. 43
43. There seems no reasonto doubtthat a similar conclusion isto be reached in relation
to theKings and Chiefsof Old Calabar, indeed their position constitutes an a fortiori
case. Like much of the constitutional and international development of the British
Empire in the late nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, the
matter was one of graduai evolution. The emergence to full international
independence of Australia, Canada, lndia and New Zealand, for example, was in
each case a slow process, andit is difficult to pinpoint any one event by which that
process could be saidto have been completed: it was at the time a matter of much
debate.
44. So toc with Old Calabar. Two processes were at work. First, there was a graduai
emergence of a singleNigerian entity. Thefirst time that the term "Nigeria" was used
in formai British legal instruments appears to have been in two Orders in Council
made in 1899 49, probably as a conglomerate name invented for administrative
purposes. From thenon "Nigeria"gradually became the dominant concept, and came
for many purposes - but not necessarilyali- to constitutethe legal person which was
the subjectof the Protectorate.
45. The second process which was at work, concurrently, was the emergence of the
Obongship of Calabar as the central element in the traditional rule of the region,
representing the collective authority of ali the Kings and Chiefs of the Kingdom. As
explained above, the present Obongship was, and still is, the result of a formalised
arrangement for identifying the principal among the Kings and Chiefs, of whom the
person selected to be Obong was one. The individual Kings and Chiefs, however,
continuedto exist, andindeed the pattern of local rulerswas neverended.
49 Nigeria'sCounter-Memoria!,para 6.68(5),pp. 113-114. 44
46. Whether asthe entity "Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar''(collectively represented by
the most senior arnongthem), oras individual Kings andChiefs, or as the Obongsof
Calabar (elected, and representingthe Kingsand Chiefsof the Kingdom collectively),
the authorityof those traditional local rulers has been continuous. lt stiJlcontinuesto
this day asa significant element inlocal govemmental adrninistration. 50
47. At what stage within this process of evolution the Kings and Chiefs and their
successors in title can be said to have ceased to enjoy international personality
cannot be precisely determined. They would seern clearly to have ceased to be an
international person in 1960, when Nigeria becarne the recognised independent
State in respect of their territories. But for sorne purposes their international
personality continued at least untilthen. Certainly, as stated above, up to that date
the ProtectingState, the United Kingdorn,regarded theirTreaty of Protection of 1884
as still"operative and inforce".
48. This Court,and its predecessor, in the cases conceming Nationality Decrees lssued
51 52
in Tunis and Morocco, Rights of Nationais of the United States in Morocco, and
Western Sahara, 53 set certain standards and reached certain conclusions as to
international personality of certain ernerging entities. By comparison with the
particular situations with which the Court was dealing in those cases - the nornadic
tribal societyin Western Sahara, and the protectoratesin the othertwo cases- there
seems no roorn for doubt that (i). the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar had
international personality at the timeof the conclusionofthe1884 Treatyof Protection·-
50 NC-M, paras6.85-6.87pp.123-125.
51 PCIJ Series 8, No. 4.
52 ICJ Reports 1952, p. 176.
53 ICJ Reports 1975, p. 12. 45
indeed their conclusion of that Treaty was a manifestation of that international
personality, (ii) they did not Joseit by virtue of that Treaty, aOiithat personality
continuedto survive the various changes which ensued in the following years, until
lndependencein 1960. 46
QUESTION OF JUDGE ELARABY
"1have one question addressed to the Respondent: The question is as follows:
ln the course of the oral pleadings, referencewas made to the legal régime established by
the League's Mandate and the United Nations' Trusteeship.
Wou/dit be possible to elaborate further and provide the Court with additional comments on
the relevanee of the boundaries that existed during that period?"
RESPONSE
1. lt appears that this question relates to two matters: first, the territorial limits adopted
by the League of Nations and the United Nations for the Mandated and Trust
Territory of British Cameroons, and second, the relevance for the present case of
those limits in the light of the legal régime established by the Mandate and
Trusteeship systems.
TERRITORIAL LIMITS
(A) Background
2. Following the outbreak of the First World Warin 1914, British, French and Belgian
troops occupied the German territory of Kamerun: this occupation was completed in
1916, and thereafter the administration of occupied Kamerun was undertaken by the
United Kingdomand France.
3. Franco-British negotiationstook place between Picot (for France) and Strachey (for
54
the United Kingdom) regarding the provisional administration of Kamerun. During
their negotiations it appearsthat the Britishand Frenchnegotiators had before them
54
See NC-M,para 18.30,p. 488. 47
a map produced by Picot on which he had drawn a line indicating a division of
territory southof Yola (a location somewhat over half way along the Nigeria-Kamerun
boundary between the sea and Lake Chad). During discussion Strachey drew on it a
rough line in blue pencil amending Picot's original line. The two Govemments, by an
Exchange of Notes of 3-4 March 1916, accepted the lines drawn on the map signed
by the two negotiators. However, the original of the map on which this Jinewas drawn
has not been found, and its nature can only be inferred from various papers which
are still available. Since in any event the actual course of the line is not known, and,
wherever it ran, it was superseded in 1919 by a further Anglo-French agreement, the
Picot-Strachey line had little practical relevance for the boundary alignment after
1919.
4. With the end of the Warin 1918, Gerrnany relinquished its title to the former German
territory of the Kamerun by Articles 118 and 119 of the Treaty of Versailles 1919. 55
Those Articles read asfollows:
PART IV
GERMAN RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OUTSIDE GERMANY
Article 118
ln territory outside her European frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty, Gerrnany
renounces ali rights, titles and privilegeswhatever in or over territory which belonged to
her or to her allies, and ali rights,titles and privileges whatever their origin which she
held as againstthe Allied and Associated Powers.
Germany hereby undertakes to recognize and to conform to the measures which may
be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, in
agreementwhere necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation
intoeffect.
55 NC-M,Vol.V,AnnexNC-M49, p. 476. 48
ln particular Germany declares her acceptance of the following Articles relating to
certainspecialsubjects.
SECTION1
GERMANCOLONIES
Article119
Germany renounces in faveur of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers ali her
rightsand titlesover heroverseapossessions.
5. These Articles did not identify the German possession of Kamerun as one of the
German oversea possessions covered by these Articles, but it is common ground
between the Parties that that was so. Since Kamerun was not in terms identified in
these Articlesof the Treaty of Versailles, there was no reference in that Treaty toits
bouridariës.
6. ln practice it was for the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to agree among
themselves what was to be done with German oversea possessions. ln the
meantime they provisionally administered those possessions. As part of the
provisional arrangements, the formerGerman Kameruncontinued to be administered
under the authority of the British andFrench Govemments.
7. On 10 July 1919 the United Kingdom and France signed a "Franco-British
Declaration".61nthis they recordedthatthey had
"agreed to determinethe frontier, separating the territories of the Cameroons
placed respectivelyunder the authority of their Govemments,as it is traced on
the map Moisel1:300,000, annexed to the present declaration and defined in
the descriptioninthree articlesalso annexed hereto."
56 NC-M,paras 18.31-18.33,pages488-490;AnnexNC-M 50. 49
8. The annex to the Declaration was entitled "Description of the Franco-British Frontier,
marked on the Moisel's Map of the Cameroons, scale 1:300,000". lt described the
boundary in Article1, made provision for demarcation in Article 2, and attached a
map of the Cameroons, scale 1:2,000,000, "to illustrate the description of the above
frontier''. This document is generally referred to as the Milner-Simon Declaration,
those being the names ofthe British and French Ministers who signed it.
9. The Milner-SimonDeclarationdescribedthe boundaryfromLake Chad (at the mouthof
the Ebedji) to the Atlantic (to seaward of the junction of the Matumal and Victoria
Creeks, in effect at the mouth of the Cameroon River). This boundarythus forrnedthe
eastern boundary of the British area of the Cameroons, and the western boundary of
the Frenchareaofthe Cameroons.lt isillustratedon the sketchmap atAnnex 3.
(8) The Mandate
10. Under the Treaty of Versailles the Principal Allied and Associated Powers had
acquired ali Gerrnany's rights over, inter alia, the Cameroons. As recorded in the
57
Preamble to the Mandate eventually conferred upon Great Britain, those Powers
agreed that the British and French Govemments should make a joint
recommandation to the League of Nations as to the future of the Cameroons. The
two Govemments made a joint recommendation to the Council of the League of
Nations that mandates should be conferred upon them covering (for Great Britain)
"that part of the Cameroons lying to the west of the line agreed upon in the [Milner
Simon] Declaration", and (for France58)"that part of the Cameroons lying to the east
of the line agreed upon inthe [Milner-Simon] Declaration".
58 AnnexNC-M 51.
See Mandate for French Cameroons, preamble: Annex NC-M 52. 50
11. Accordingly,ArtiCle1 of the Mandatefor the BritishCameroons described the territorial
scopeof the Mandatein thefollowingterms:
''The territory for which a Mandate is conferred upon His Britannic Majesty '.-'
comprisesthat part of the Cameroonswhichlies ta thewest of the linelaid dawn
in the Declaration signed on the 10th July 1919, of which a copy is annexed
hereto."
The Declarationreferred ta was the Milner-Simon Declaration.The Article went on to
allow that line ta be "slightly modified" in certain circumstances, and provided also
that "The delimitation on the spot of this line shall be carried out in accordance with
the provisions of the said Declaration" - a reference ta the arrangements set out in
Article 3 of the Milner-Simon Declaration.
12. Article 1 of the Mandate for the French Cameroons described the territorial limits of
the Mandate in equivalent terms, although of course referring to that part of the
~- ~
Cameroons lyingta the east of the Milner-Simon line.
13. lt is ta be noted that Article 1 of the British Mandate only set out, by its referenceta
the Milner-Simon Declaration, the eastern boundarv of the British Cameroons. The
northern, southem and western boundaries were left as covered simply by the
reference ta "that part of the Cameroons": i.e. if a territory was part of the
Cameroons, and if it lay ta the west of the line set out in the Milner-Simon
Declaration, then it was covered by the Mandate and was part of the British
Cameroqns.
14. Consequently,this meant that intemationally
the easternboundaryof the BritishCameroonswas that described inthe Milner-
Simon Declaration, 51
the northem boundary was the boundary of the former Kamerun facing Lake
Chad,
the southem boundary was the coast line (together with its territorial sea) of the
former Kamerunfacing the Gulfof Guinea, and
the western boundary was the boundary between the Nigeria Protectorate and
the former Kamerun, as described almost entirely in various Angle-German
treaties.
These boundaries are illustratedin the sketch map at Annex 3.
15. lt is to be noted that this description of the boundary does not result in a completely
certain territorial boundary for the British Cameroons. Thus, for example, if any of the
relevant instruments contained a defective delimitation, or a delimitation which is
ambiguous or otherwise unclear, then the boundary will itself be defective or unclear.
Again, if any of the relevant instruments is in sorne way without legal affect, then the
boundary will to that extent note determined by that instrument.
16. ln short, the language of the territorial definition in Article 1 of the Mandate for the
British Cameroons (and its mirror image in the Mandate for the French Cameroons)
begs the question whether any particular piece of territory was or was not "part of the
Cameroons". This question is of particular relevance to the position of the Bakassi
peninsula, for the reasons fully set out in Nigeria's written pleadings and in Nigeria's
oral argument, and bearing in mind the general limits on the powers of the
Administering Authority (asto which see below).
17. No formai change was made to the terms of Article 1 of the Mandate for either the
British or French Cameroons during the continuance of the Mandate. 52
18. However, during the 1920s various relatively minor practical problems arase
regarding the application of the Milner-Simon Declaration. Variousjoint Anglo-French
teams inspected the boundary areas and made reports. The Govemor of Nigeria (Sir
Graeme Thomson) and the Govemor of the French Cameroons (M. Paul Marchand)
put in hand arrangements forfurther specifying the boundary between the British and
French Cameroons. The result of their work was a "Declaration .. defining the
Boundary between British and French Cameroons", signed by them, but not dated
(although it would appear ta have been signed in 1929).
19. This Declaration is referred to as the Thomson-Marchand Declaration. lt describes
the whole Angle-French boundary,from Lake Chad ta the sea at, in affect, the mouth
of the Cameroon River, by reference ta successive lines described in 188 short
paragraphs. The Declarationwas approved by the two Govemments in an Exchange
60
of Notes of 9 January 1931 •
20. ln doing sa, the Govemments noted that (as set out in paragraph 2 of the British
Note) "this declaration is ... not the product of a boundary commission constituted for
the purposes of carrying out the provisions of Article 1 of the Mandate, but only the
result of a preliminary survey conducted in arder to determine more exactly than was
done in the Milner-Simon Declaration of 1919 the line ultimately to be followed by the
boundary commission". Despite its stated "preliminary" character, the two
Govemments agreed that "the Declaration does in substance define the frontier'', and
they agreed that the "actual delimitation" could now be entrusted to the boundary
commission envisaged in Article ~ of the Mandate. ln fact, only a limited stretch of
boundary was demarcated between December 1937 and.May 1939, and that stretch
59 AnnexNC-M54, at p.4.
60 AnnexNC-M54. 53
is now wholly within Cameroon and thus not relevant to the present boundary
between Nigeriaand Cameroon.
21. Perhaps because of its "preliminary" character, while the fact of the Thomson
Marchand Declaration was notified to the League of Nations (Annex 4), its provisions
do not appear to have been communicated by the two Governments to the League.
Thus during the period of the Mandatethe Thomson-Marchand Declaration does not
seem to have formally formed part of the boundary arrangements with which the
Leaguewas concerned.
22. The League was, however, keenly interested in developments affecting the territorial
extent of the Mandates for British and French Cameroons, as for ali Mandated
territories. The Mandatory Govemments did not have sovereignty over the mandated
territories, and therefore did not have any unilateral right to dispose of any territory
subject to the Mandate, or to acquire additional territory for the Mandate. Any
territorial changes needed the approval of the League of Nations. lt was thus
necessary for a Mandatory Govemment to report any changes or prospective
changes to the League, not necessarilywith total specificity butat leastwith sufficient
clarity to enable the League to control what was happening and, if necessary, to
make further enquiries. An example is the British Govemmenfs 1934 Report to the
League on the British Cameroons, which reported a frontier adjustment, almost
certainly in the region of Sapeo1.
23. ln 1946,after the SecondWorld Warhad ended and in preparationfor the forthcoming
arrangements for United Nations Trusteeship, the United Kingdom made new
arrangementsforthe administration andgovemment of the BritishCameroons.These
61 AnnexNC-M265; seealso CR2002/10, p.55,para57 (Watts) 54
involved dividing the mandated area into a northem part and a southem part. The
dividing line between the northemd southem partsof the British mandated area of
Cameroons was set out in the Second Schedule to the Nigeria (Protectorats and
Cameroons) Orderin Council19466•Thisadministrativechangewas solelyconcemed
with the internai administrativeline of division,and didnot at thetime affectthe extemal
boundaries ofthe mandated area, in particular the boundary with French Cameroons,
whichcontinued as before.
(C) Trusteeship Agreement
24. The Mandates system cameto an end after the end of the Second World War, and
was replaced by the Trusteeship system under the United Nations Charter. The
Trusteeship Agreement for the British Cameroons was approved by the General
Assembly on 13 December 1946, and came into force on the same day53 lt defined
~ the-territorytowhich~it- eapipllnttd hosetadopmsd inArticle 1 of the
Mandate. Article 1 the Trusteeship Agreement wasin the following terms:
"The Territory to which this Agreement applies comprises that part of the
Cameroons lying to the west of the boundary defined by the Franco-British
Declaration of 10 July1919, and more exactlydefined in the Declaration made
by the Govemor of theColony and Protectoratsof Nigeriaand the Govemor of
the Cameroons underFrench mandate whichwas confirmed by the Exchange
of Notes between His Majesty's Govemment in the United Kingdom and the
French Govemment of 9 January 1931. This line may, however, be slightly
modified by mutual agreementbetween HisMajesty'sGovemmentin the United
Kingdom and the Govemmentofthe French Republicwhere an examination of
the localitiesshows thatit is desirablein the interestsofthe inhabitants."
25. lt should be nqted that, since the eastern boundary of the British Trust Territory
should be identical with the western boundary of the French Trust Territory, there is a
discrepancy between Article 1 of each of the Trusteeship Agreements in that,
62
63 AnnexNC-M 55.
AnnexNC-M 56. 55
somewhat curiously, the French Agreement does not contain any reference to the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration. 64 Strictly speaking, therefore, the boundary
inherited by Cameroon on independenΠwas that described in the Milner-Simon
Declaration only, and not the boundary as set out in greater detail in the Thomson
Marchand Declaration. Nigeria does not, however, seek to attach any substantive
significanΠto this technical discrepancy: Nigeria clearly inherited a boundary
determined by the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, and Nigeria is willing to accept
its provisions as delimiting the boundary (subject, of course,to the specifie locations
which Nigeria hasdrawn to the Court'sattention).
26. No formai agreement making any "slight modification" of the kind referred to in the
final sentence of Article 1 of the Trusteeship Agreement was ever concluded: the
territorial limits of the Trust Territory therefore formally remained throughout the
Trusteeship period as prescribed in Article 1.
27. Those territorial limitsfollowed, in effect,the pattern ofthe limits prescribed by Article
1 of the Mandate, with the addition,for the British Cameroons,of the reference to the
'more exact definition' in the Thomson-Marchand Declaration. Accordingly, the
observations madeabove in relationto the Mandate continuedto be relevant- Article
1, by its reference to the Milner-Simon Declaration and the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration, only defined the eastern boundarv of the British Cameroons. The
northem, southem and western boundaries were left as covered simply by the
reference to the phrase "that part of the Cameroons": i.e. only if a territory was part of
the Cameroons, and if it lay to the west of the line set out in the Milner-Simon and
Thomson-Marchand Declarations, was it covered by the Trusteeship Agreement.
Thus, intemationally, the northem boundary continued to be the boundary of the
64 See NC-M paras 19.68-19.70, pages 542-543. 56
former Kamerunfacing Lake Chad, the southem boundary continued to be the coast
line (togetherwith its territorial sea) of the former Kamerunfacing the Gulff Guinea,
and the western boundary was the boundary between the Nigeria Protectorate and
the former Kamerun, as described almostentirely in various Anglo-German treaties.
28. ln short, the language of the territorial definition in Article 1 of the Trusteeship
Agreement continued to beg the question whether any particular piece of territory
was or wasnot "part of the Cameroons".
29. As explained in relation to Article 1 of the Mandate, this question is of particular
relevance to the position of the Bakassi peninsula, bearing in mind also not only the
general limitson the powers of the Administering Authority(as to which see below) but
also in particularits obligationsunder Article8 the TrusteeshipAgreement 57
THE RELEVANCE OF THE MANDATE AND TRUSTEESHIP BOUNDARIES
30. lt is generally accepted that Mandatory States and Administering Authorities under
Trusteeships Agreements (together here referredto as 'Administering States') did not
have sovereignty over the mandated or trust territories under their administration.
The Court held, in the case conceming the International Status of South West Africa,
that conferment of a mandate upon a mandatory State did not involve any cession or
65
transfer of territory to it, but that, rather, the territory had its own international •
The notion that the mandatory State could in sorne way be regarded as having
annexed the mandated territory was clearly rejected in the Namibia (South West
Africa) Legal Conseguences Case 6•
31. They had specifie rights and powers under the terms of the Mandate or Trusteeship
Agreement in question, and in relation to any specifie matter the first requirement is
to look at the terms of those ·instruments. Although those terms differed from
instrument to instrument, the one consistent provision in ali of them was that the
Administering Stateswere legallyaccountable for their discharge and fulfilment of the
mandate and trusteeship agreement. They exercised their rights and powers subject
to the authority of the international community's supervisory bodies - the Council of
the League of Nations, advised by the Permanent Mandates Commission, and the
Trusteeship Council of the United Nations. Those bodies exercised their supervisory
roles primarily onthe basis ofannual reports submitted by the Administering States.
32. The specifie point which Nigeria made in the oral proceedings, and to which Judge
Elaraby was presumably referring, was that, as noted above, the Administering
States did not havesovereignty over the territories they were administering. This
65 JCJRep. 1950 at p.132.
66 ICJ Rep. 1971 at pp. 28, 30, 43. 58
carries with it the consequence that, in particular, they did not have the power
unilaterallyto alter their boundarieseither so asto increase the limits of the territories
or so as to diminish them 67•Any suchvariation in the territorial limits of the mandated
or trust territory required the approval of the relevant supervisory organs of the
League of Nations and United Nations 68- that is, in the former case, the Council of
the Leagueacting on theadvice of the Permanent Mandates Commission, and in the
latter case,the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations.
33. There is no record - and certainly Cameroon has not produced any - of any such
approval having been given in relation to the Bakassi peninsula. lt follows that the
boundaries of the Mandated and later Trust territory of British Cameroons were
during the Mandate and Trusteeship periods, and at their end, precisely what they
were at the beginning, i.e. in 1922, since at no time subsequently did the British
Govemment have any right or power unilaterally to alter those boundaries.
Accordingly, the Bakassipeninsula had the sameterritorial status in 1960 as it had in
1922.
34. Moreover, as the continuing Protecting State in respect of Nigeria, Great Britain
remained bound by the Treaty of Protection of 1884, and so continued not to have
any right or power to alienate Bakassi.so asto transfer it to the Mandated or Trust
territory of the British Cameroons.
35. For the same reasoning, Great Britain had no poweras the transitional administering
authority from 1918 to 1922, or as the belligerent occupying power during the First
World War, to make any unilateral changes in the boundary of Kamerun, nor could
Great Britain as the continuing Protecting State have Iawfully transferred Bakassi to
Counsel for Cameroon stated: "lt was axiomatic in this structure that the administering power did not
68 have the power unilaterally to dispose of such territory" (CR 200214,p.19, para 4 (Ntamark:)).
Cameroon agrees: CR 2002/4, p.19, paras 6-7 (Ntamarck). 59
Kamerun during that transitional period. There is no evidence that Great Britain ever
purported to make any such change or transfer during that period. Accordingly the
territorial status of Bakassi was the same in 1922, at the beginning of the Mandate,
as it had been in 1914.
36. The only possible change in its tenitorial status before then would have been that which
resulted from the Anglo-Gennan Treaty of 11 March 1913 had that treaty been effective
to change the Nigeria-Kamerun boundary to the Akwayafe (now, Akpa Yafe). For the
reasons which Nigeria has set out at length, the relevant provisions (Articles XVIII-XXII)
were not legally effective to achieve that result, given their violation of the fundamental
and universally accepted rule, nemo dat guod non habet. ::.:..
.:'..~
·.·~.
..-::-·:"' ...
.. ~-
..
./
·.··,,~·•
c. '39
~. '
~ ~o.61. . l
t . .IJ!IajorMacDonald to the Marquis oOctober 5;).-(Received
f'·"(N2.).
~ :~yLord, . Bonny, September 1, 1891.
~ .:~HAVE. the honour to report that on the 27th August I returned from a tour of·
f visitsround the variousrivers in th. Protect·rate.
r The tour common the J0tand was undertaken sô that~' ·couldinstall--.
~··.m.a . in their ~dsaCs, and for the ·~;
r· purpose ... most.of waralready known;~o me,..
~..· ·explainingto themcustoms 'duties, and obtaining their consf;lntfor the ,:;;
~, imp~?sftioame. ~ ;;;.
t -~Mirstmeeting was held at BoJolyThere wepr~sette
·: ·meetingali the more important Chiefs·of Bonny, as weil as King Amachree, and 'the
~~ ·Chiefsof New Calabar.
~:. I explainedfully to them the reasons for the new order of Administration which I
; ·W~boutinaug.t1rate,.reminded them to'thin 1.on whichit
t,occ~thyhad desired that their district miaCrqwn Colony,.ered.as
;:: ::renf such a form of G~vthen informed them that Her Majel;lty's
;··. Gov.ernmentbad~appoiConsular oineach River di~hoict,
" wou~eresident in the district and who would be the Representative of Rer. Majesty
;,: the Queen; to this officerthey could alwaysappeal in any-matter, and to him they could
;)alw~cme for advice•. He would be responsible to Her Majesty's Government,.
~.hrough the Consul-General at Old Oalabar, that law and order should be maintained,.
~ ·andthat every .man should be hitrade or calling in peace·; and
~-.tbt.o ·meet ·the extra expenses which this:form of government would entail.,it was
!.proposei~podlies on certain articI then went carefully through
i -eachitem of the CustomsTariff, a;u·exp.ai.ed it to them.
-~ At the conclusionof the meeting:l introduced General Hammill ·to them as their
\ ·.future Vice-Consul,and requested them to give me a statement in writing to the effect
~ t~te'thorougundersteod-ies, that the said dq.tieswere imposed with their
;; -co,nd that they would ab1deby them.
·~ ·Adiscussionfollowedwhich lasted a considerable time; they finally said that they
·; wouldbe gratéfulforconsid~ratterTsaid I_wouldgive them 'tbree
r days,and that; on my retnrn, I should like toI point.ednswer in writing.
;...o them tifthere was anything .theydid not nnderstand, or if they did·not
'··co~téhtimpositionof 'theduties, they we.e tolet me lmow.
· 'rhe meeting then t.A.deputation of the New Ca1a:barChiefs waited
' uponme afterwards, and stated they had quite understood the duties and saw that it
,. wasfor·the good of the country that they should be imposed; but they hoped that, as
·J;thej'paid eq.itthe Bonny men; they would have a Consular o.fficerfor
:themselves. .
t_J Itold them in rIwould consider their request, theythat, at present,
{must be content with periodical visitsfrom Ia~iformedonsul at Bonny.
ithemthdnmyreturli from Ol-should ·come·andpay them a VlSit,and we
fwouldthen talk·the matter over. · · · :;\
ΕHyO-: ~~j~~f~~;~~~~l ~ i~ ~t f. & ·~~~.,,;~t~~:"~~~~~~-~;:~~.v;~~:sg;.:l~o~[::l·
t,··::s~~ee.~gy&:G_·~n\·6~:'!a··I!Ja~.~~.r~tt~~}.As?:~~~~~~~'Q~ij.~::~:,~:·.:··
~-ugqst. Befu.g"âeiayëcï'bybad weather, I wasüîiable 1- hold the meeting unti1Monday
~3d.August.
t:.I landed a:A.under a saluel~vfuns from Her Majesty's ship- :·
fr.:'"~Sawdlcompned by sevofthe o:fficèrsfM,ajessiy.,s·
·;··;f{,~~~gi~~~ttw~;;,>~îfl4 i~.~~.~~f•~~~r~~~~5:"~'9:"C
ii~kl:.?.tôAi~an;arhe·onlsoiofmya.ëest:he Chiefs,thevt4S:
èquë '~·-to~l1t wà·r·onsult.-amcingthèmseI consented to,.,
"'"nd iiihalf-a:r~tur:.tp.eter_.~dgaly~1gapape~ucah[
0
~~~~h~Y.·~~ ~..-' ~ ·..~..l:~"{'.:~·~~~~·l.Î-:~.:j.e~~ :!.
-4.0
Î>ehaviour of the late Consul and his police. 1 said that this hatid~owith · :.
the present question, but· that it was my duty to inquireandti~I thought it
necessary, to take action regarding any complaint they brought before me, and that I
:should mosc~rta donso at a later date. They then signed the document her_ewith
inclosed, and the meeting terminated. · · ,
·The nature of their complain·tforms the subject of another despatch..
On the following day, the 4t.hAugIproceeded in·Her Majesty's shlp " Racer,,. ·
to Bonny, Her Majesty's ship "Swallow." having gone to Fernando Po to coal.
On the 4th August we anchored at 'Bonny,and on the 6th I proceeded to Ok~ika,.
a large and important trading village sitqated 22 milesfrom the mouth of the river. ·
The Okrika peoplehaveavery bad reputation in Bon~ district; they are professin.g
cannibals, anin a large temple.(".Ju-ju" hotise) in the centre of·the ~eplate are
the skulls and bones of the victirus of their last C?-nnibalorgie, which took place in
Noveinber 1888,.andfbr which theywerefined by ConsulHewett. Twenty-fivepuncheons
{equal to200l.) of this:finestill remains unpaid, and it wasto makèinquiries regarding.
tlùs....;_aJso.bhe Chiefs bad:potattended my meeting·in Bonny-althothey bad
~ee nuly summoned,that 1 went to pay them a visit. On my way .to the Mission
Hou~ ~e-passed the"Ju-ju" bouse rèferred to, where the skulls, bones, &c., are
displayed tothe view of·anybody passing. :
I was unable to see the Kirig,and, as a heavy storm was·approaret~ned,
together with the two naval officerswho had accompanied me to th.esteatnAs.tter.
'-Wwere abot t·emtbark sorne400 villagers turned out and meJ?acedus, but attempted
no v:ïolence; the expressions usedby the natives were of a most insulting description.
· · There is a Missionstation at"this place. On my return to Bonny on the 27th August.
I received the two letters, copiesof whicl1are herein i·closed. .
· I mention this incident to show how·much yet remains t(l be done t-9wards the
dvilizing- of the ProtectorI have summoned a meeting_of the Okrika Cbiefs fo:r
.S~tu: nedxt,ye 5th September, whInpropose pointing out to them what a standing
·shameand disgrace the presence of their cannj.bal"Jn-ju"isto them arid t.heir
people, and thatfthey do not,of·their own: accord, destroy the bouse and give up
-cannibalism,I shall shortly take severe measures to compel them to do so·.
· On the followingday, the 7ÇhAugust, I held· mysecond meeting _withthe Bonny
Chiefs, on which occasion. they presented me with a letter, copy Ifherewith·
forward to your Lordship.The market question, which forms the subject of the last
paragraph: of tbeir letter,e dealt witb à separate despatchAt my desi trey
alsosigné(!a paper stating that they ùnderstood the duties,consented to their imposition_,.
and would abide by them.. I havethon~ tu nclosethis docun:ieutin origina·.
Her Majesty's shlp "Swallow ".having returned from Fernando Po; I proceeded in
her to Bugama, the principal townof the New.Calabar district, and on the 9th August .
lteld a meetiiJ.g·of the E:.ingand Chiefs where, after considerablediscussiqn, they s?-gned
the docurQentwhich I hS:ve the honour to indose berT1iey again repeated :their-
l"equesto have a Consular officerspecially appointed to themselve.. ·:
The following morning· I proèeededÎ1iHer Majesty's ship "Swallow," anq .
.anchored in the Opobo River on the l2th August, having previously.warried the-Chiefs.
()f my arrivaiA meeting was held the same afternoon. The Chiefs listened to my
:remarks explaining the administrationin silence) and signédthe document, which [
bave the honour to inclose herewith, without any reThrough their Head Çhief
Ojoloth~ tYen asked me whetber I bad r~cci ane dnswer from your LorÇ.ship
l'especti~th eeirest that the. body of late Chief Ja Ja might be sent to them..
I then :reaâ your Lordship's tel~f-thelith August, stating that t'be·SpanishLaw
forbade exhumationex<:ept after a la:pseoftwo years. . .This·intèll3eceived?-Jr
with. something akin .·conster aid.afiro·onsulting.àmong·stthemselves, they
implo:redme to approach your Lordship once more on the snbject, Rtating as·their
:reasons tha.untU·tbeir King was.buried in their count rhy would_awl aybe
held up as abjects of contempt amongst the ;·neighbouring trithà,this \you1d
.lead to continuai quarrels, and even peffy wars, up the markets, and -wouldbe !very
detrimentaf.o trade.The Eù.ropean traders had informed; me ·ttr~ wdes.at a.
-complete standstill in the district.. Under the circumstances, I informed themthat I
would once more telegraph to your Lordshlp, but that I çould htut faint bcipes.
..Qftheir request being acceded to,for.,·aItwas sure thet Her Majesty'sGovern
ment were willing to help thinthe matter,_yet tpe law of ::,pam negoti~.tion.s.
<>nthe 9uhjecLe.x:cee dffc~lglbut thaitifby any chance their reques;-~~s
.accededto;they mUst l00kll!.IÏtaR amark nf Pt::: o:un·ln~1,.1,.,..,....(! "Q",.,_ 41
Majesty's Govèrnment,and one of which they must show theix apprebyassisting
meto open up civilization and inathe interior. .
. In connèctionwith the above, 1 may add that the day after my return to Bonny I
· received your Lordship's telegram of the 28th August, informing me that the Spanish
.Govemmenthad authorized, under certain restrictions, the exhnmation of Ja Ja's body•
.Thesa~e day I proceeded to Opobo, and read the above.:mentitel~g oa he
· assembled Chiefs. The greatest joy prevailed, and the Chiefs begged that I would
·thàn.kHer Majesty's·GovernmentJor this mark· of favour ; they a1so assured me that
theywould never forget what I had done for them, and would assist 'me,to the best of
theirability, in any undertaking I ·wishedto enter into.
I left Opobo in Her Majesty's shlp "Swalon the l3th August, and anchored
in the Brass River on the 15thrhad communicated with Bra.Sby telegram from
Bonny,and bad summoned a~eeti fnrthe afternoon of the 15th. ·
.· On arrival at .Brass I was informecl that the Cbiefs had sent a meS]3age.tothe effect
·that they had a meeting of theia,d cm;Ildnot come to see ;tm the next day,
owingto thedist~ tny had to travelOn the following day the Chiefs arrived, and,.
atmy request, Captain Finnis, of Her Majest~''wallow," landed a party of sixty
·seamenand marines as a guard of honour for myself. · .
This guard had a marked effect upon the behaviour of thP-Çbiefs, who were
~juclined ·at first to be unrnly and somewhat tL·uculent in their IhaBefore
-commencingthe meeting, I informed the Chiefs that, when I sent them a message,
implicitobedience was what I expe.cted, anI,as Representative,~er Majesty,
wouldhave. .
I then proceeded to.address them :uponthe subject of the new adminisAtation.·
theconclusioof my remarks they stated that they had understood everything I had
saidari.dthat now they wished to speak ou the subject of their markeIssaid·
.·that I would listen to nothing· nntil they had given me their opinion regarding the
subjecton whichI had spokenThey then requested leaveto retire, and have a meeting
amongstthemselves to considei the question, promising that, on the following morning,
>theywould let me have·my answer.To this I consented. They then retired to the
neigl).bouringvillage of Twbn, and.held a meeting, which lasted late into the night--at
·whichmeeting it was unanimously decided that they.would refuse to sign any paper
respectingduties, &c., imtil I had gfv\3na written promise to get ·back their markets fôr
:~thfremmthe Niger .Company.
~·. Having been privately- info1:medof this decision, I opeDed the meeting on the
;:followingmorning by infor!Ding the Chiefs that I ·had been sent by Her Majesty's
1'Governmentto look after their interests, as well as those of the White man, and that,
therefore, I wasthere as their representative and friend. · ·
·. With regard to the paper I had asked them to sign,.I wished them to exercise their
entire free-will in thee-r:and that, thereforwasinot a question of their
(1"._.as a favour tome for which another .favour would be bestowed·in rIf,rn.
.i!.':nr'hey,refused to sign, I must request thèm to sign another paper stating that
did not consentothe imposition of duties, and giving their reasons for the same,
"'·"''paper I should forward to Her Majesty's Governme.nt.A.fter considerable
e-v•o ·-•am ongutt•e~seves·they informed me that I was their father, and their
and that, for the .future, they would do everythlng I told them, that they deeply .
=,,~., nooha·ira rtme to the meBting on the Saturday, but it was not altogether
fault. They said theyuld gladly sign a paper consenting to the imposition of
~"'·'' tey"sw ""at he:fovernment of the country coula not be carried on without
Seve;al local matters weth~ ennered npon,·vvhlchI handed over to Captain
.......ice-Consùlof the district, whom I had duly installed at the meeting of the
day. . .
'l'he question of oil-produce markett~1asntnoduced. From what I could
àt the meeting, and from my previous knowledge of the subject, 1 am of opinion
un.lesssome arrangement is·arrived at with the Niger Compath~trade. of
will.shortly ceaseto exist, as the Niger Company have made Treat1es Wlth aU the
'V.1.' vVlUgela.he.baik.UfthL~Brass River, and itimpo~ibl te_natie
to earn ev.ànlivelihood with the heavy export duties on palm oil and kernels
by the Company. .. · . ...--
.On this subject I shall have the honorepoo tr~yo?-r Lordsh1p~ta later
·I forward here>vith the st.atement made respectmg dut1es by the Chiefs of the
River.
·."thesame day I proceeded hi Her Majesty's shlp "Swto Warri, by way 42 .;
of the ForcadosRiv~ rt.the mouth of this river we wer.e joined byMajesty'~·:
ship "Racer,'' and, piloted by steam-ship ''Whyv~ss"Iehlve chartered from the·.,
African Steam-ship Company,we proceeded.to Warri, and anchored thmi~dat oy >
the 19th August. · · · :'
The Chiefs of Warri belong to the Jekri tribe, and are under Nana,great~
middleman Chief of Benin. They are, however, very anxious to become independent,·.
and as the trade here promisesto be one of the most fl.ourishing.;in the Protectorate, and.·
.as Nana isalready s:ufficientlypowerful, and threatens to become a second Ja-Ja ..I ·
tbought it politic to establish a separate Vice-Consulate at this place, and to conclude··
with the Chiefsof Warri a separate protection TreMy meeting with the Warri
.Chiefstook place on the 19th August, and passed off satisfactorily in eYer:.espect.
I forward herewith a copy of the Treaty made with these Ohiefs. .
A statement that they understood, and consented to the imposition·of duties, wàs
made to Captain Synge, Her Britanilic Majesty'sDeputjr Commissionerand·Viqe-Consul>
in my presence. · .
On the 29th August I proceeded ist~am- ·Whiydah,'' accompanied by Her
1\fajesty'sps "S:wallo' ~nd ''Racer,'' through the creeks to B.enin,at whlch place
we anchoredon the eveningof the 21st. The .meeting here was the largest .and most
import;mt of any.I bad held. Nana came in a war-canoe, paddled by upwards of 100
slaYes,with four or five similar canoeat~enda nncewith a personal escort of.
twenty men armed with Winchester repeating-riflesthe other Chiéfsof any note,
escorted by large retinues, were alSopresent. · .
On this occasion,having two of Rer Majestis ships with me, I ·requestedCaptain '·
Finnis to land a:slarge a guard of honour às possible, and 120 seamem~ine· s
paraded on shore. This display has, so I have be!3ninformed by all the European
traders, bad aost·excellent effect,sncb a large number of Whm~n never having
been seenin the river before. . .
The Chiefs listened to my remarks with great attention, ap.d adiscu~sion.
followed, dnring which they s'Q.othat they thoroughly understood the matters in
question. Nana had in his possession a copy of theProclamat conoaning the
schedule of duties, which he informed me he had carefully studied so that his Eùropean
friends should not charge·more for their goods thau was laid down in the schedule.
Ali theChiefs, headed by Nana, and followedhy his rival (Numa), signed the Declara
tidn, which I have ·herewith the· honour to inclose. Nana then stood up and suid that
he wished I wou1dbring to the notice of Rer Majesty's GoYernment the treatment he
h~d receiYed from Consul Annesley.. He (Nana:) spoke in_a very impassionedmanner
for seYeral minutes: 1 told hhn that his letter of camplaint had been received.at the
Foreign·Office,and that it had been sent to ConsulAnnesley for any'remarks he might
have to .make upon it, and that, as soon as 1 beard, I would comnm,mcate with him,.
through the Vice-Consul whom .Her Majesty's Governrnent haappo~n ·fordtheir
district.The meeting then terminated, Nana and the Ohiefs begging me to convey
tlîeir. thanks to Her Majesty'sGovernment for having appointed a resident Consular
')fficerto their distri_ct,to whomthey might apply in any di.ficulty.
I held a separate meeting of _theEuropean traders afterwards, ançi it was·.evident
to me that in this River I would havéto combat aJoa Ja difficulty. Sorneof the
traders represented Nana as everything tbat is honest and upright; others painted him
in colours ex:actlythe opposite. One thlng is cert?-in,that he is a ·man possessed of
great power, and wealth, aste,nergetic; and intellig.nt. ·
. I informed the ·European traders that l was prepared to mai.ritain arder at the
markets as soon ash~da revenue wherewith to defray the necessary e.xpenseof doing
so (they had complainedthat they couldnot trade at the markets because they could not
getfairplay owingto NaJ+s'great powerand influence), but I pointed out that I should ·.
not be able to obtain the amount of revenue 1 required, nor they the atnount of protec
ti~ ·n,rso~e months.to come,.as their storehouseswere stocked with dutiable articles
which had.been expressly imported escape the duty.
I mày here add that the African Associationhave been particularly zealous in this
particular.
I told the traders that, with regard to· the question of their p:roceeding to the
imarkets to·obtain produdire orth~ir employingthe middiemen to do so, rested with
themselves; all I could promise them vth~sthose who·proceeded to the""-markets:
should o_btainprotection there, as soonas 1 bad sufficient revenue to insure the same.
. From alll heard, I am of opinion·that the trade of Benin is capable of immense
development. . ·· ·· · ·
I left Benin in Her Majesty'ssbip " Swa1low" on the Augus tn~ returneél]t
~ 43
;..•
~ to.onnyon the 2ith, having visited ali the rivers in my district where European
:...,;f:are established with the except.~wo.of a-smalltram where.,
'··however,there are sorneimportant plantat).ons. These I shall visit from Old Qalabar.
~-. -4ttheconclusion of each .meeting:in aIintroduced to the 'Eur.~:an
~t;rad nd~o the native Ohiefs the Consular officer who had been appointed by Her ;:
~.Majestyto act in the capacity of Deputy Commissionerand Vice-Consul for that district, ·'\
f_and I pointed out to the native Chiefs that th. would be reside~t in
~-he district, and had been t her
~
was charged to encourage and foster lawful trade, :
he was1ndependent ofand in no sense a trader; and, genera1ly,to ./
justice, peace, and civilization throughout the Protectora.l·:
The followîng·are the names of the Vice-Consuls in the Prote1torate, with the
·districtsthey are in charge of:-. · .f
Qaptain • .rallwey,emn 1stnct.trict. ~-;.'
CaptainF. M. Synge, Forcados District (''VVarri).
CaptainD. C. Macdonald, Brass Dist.ict.
Mr.W.
J.W ;.·i;m.;·:~
I hav&c.
(Signed) CLAUDE M. MAcDONALD.
Inclosu1ein No61.
Declarationsigned·atOld River, .Au3~1891.
"\YE:the Undersigned, Kings, Ohiefs,and:Headmen of the Old Oalabar and district,.
_ declare that we thoroughly understand "the customs dutiés which have been read ·
ns bMajor Claude MacDonaldMajesty's_.9.< ~?.CP§m.1is~;i.§nePr~~r~J
1
,~ :ir;;f~â:e~~~~atj~7~~1R~~;:gr::::~?~~~~:~~\~~~P+~ms;·p_p·:.:.tp~·::·::~P()~~~P.:~~ti,G.i;iêi1::<1\itièS,.
· (Signed) KING DUKE IX.
(And 26 otbers.)
I certifyt waspresent at the meeting of the Old Oalabar Chiefs;heldby Maj01··
.l\L MacDonald on the 3rd August, 1891; beard the cnstoms dnties, &c., explained
hirnto the said Chiefs,and witnessedtheir signatu.es.
(Signed) JAMEsF. RoBERTS,
·.Deputy Oommissionerand Vice-Oon{Jul.
I herebydeclà.rIttransiated the foreg9ing to the King and Ohiefs of the Old
district, and they thoroughly.understood its meaning.
(Signed) Unô A.K:PABA.ssY,. . ·
..Interpreterto the OonsularCourt.
Inclosure 2 in No. 61.·
'·
The.CJhristsf Okrika to Major MacDonald.
·· . . . · · 0krika, August 14, 1891.
·wE,the Chrl:stiansand Church adherents of Okrika, do humbly beg to·approach
with a few tines, hoping you may accept the same most k.indlyand grant us a
answer.
edes mi~sespectfully to express to yon, the ÇonsVJ.œ..Cral·onsn1~
:the officersof Her Majesty's gunregrtfotthe rude conduct shown to
theïgnorant portionr people·on your last-·visit.
o~ \ill please feel sure that.not one of us Christians or Church adherents could..
guilty.ofsnch unseemly behavionr, for we have been taught otherwise. .~.
-:;··-
!-!UJUU. ::!51-76. .; 2579
-·
:..·
rrlte London Gazette.
f- ·.1!_ . . . . . . • ···- --.• . .• . - •• ··- --.. .• - •. ;·
•.
L. . Lord·O!.amlltrlain'e jfle.;;Jamu'1 Palau.,··-car-ds-t.o-be.delivezed Lord Chamberlain,·ÏI'l···-
· March 24, 1885. order tbat there may be no clifticnltyin announcing
OTICE ishereby given, that Ber Maje3tf& .~hem..to.~~yal. -·· lg.:_n.-s.s...
N Birthday will be kept on Sa.tard.a.the ~e Sta.te Apartmenta will be open for the
6th of June next. · reception oCompany coming to Court at half-
past one o'cloek:. XENM.ARE, .
Lora ChamberJain.
Lord OluUIIberlai.nsffice,St. Jtzmei's Palare, ..
1Jfa.Jtl9, 1885.
(PoRToP J3sŒmL.-..4PP:eoA vL o:rLA.NI>mG·
OTICE is hereby gi~ eatn ,is Royal
N... Bighness The Prince of W ales wil by~ PLA.c&srox FoJŒIGN' ..A.:Imr.u.s.)
cnmm8.Dd of The Queen, hold a.Levee at St. · T the O!uncil Ckam!Jer,Wlaihhallthe Srd.
.Tamcs's Palace,on behalf qfRer Yajesty, on A .. day ofJune, 1885. .
Tuesday, the 9th of June next, at two o•clock.
lt is The Qoeen•spleasure tha.tFresentations to By :,a:erMBJestys osBouonr®le Prlvy .
IJ.isRoyal Biglaness at tbe Levee shall be con Counoll.
Pidered a..eqnil"alento Presentations to Her HE Lords and others of RerMa.jesty'Most
Majesl'r. T Honourable Prh·y Council, byvirtnea.nà.
in el:ercise of the powein them vestedunaer
REGtrL.·LTio~s Tite Contngious Diseases (.A.ninuùs) Aets, 1878
TO nE onsF.nVED.A.T TBE Qo&E!\'sLEVEE TO BE and 188-l, and everyotber power enabling them
nP.:LP nTHis Ron.L HlGBN&ss THE Fame& in this behalf.h~re abprove of the following
OF \\ALES, ON DEB.&.LOF' HER M.A.J.EST Y., parts of the Port of Bristol as Landing-Places
ST.J.a.:.uEs'.&.LA.CE. for foreign animnls not subjecto sla.ughter or
Bu H" Majm!/s Oommanà, qunrnntioe :
The Noblemen and Gentlemen who propose (1.) Bmtol Doch Laniling-Placc.
to nttencl Ber :Ma.jesty•sLeneat St. James·s .Alitha.t spac:e ana premiins the parish of
Palace, are:reqnestedto bring wir.htl1emtwo BedminRter.in the ~it ayd.r.onnty of Bristol.
lorne ca.ras, with tbeinam.es cka. rriten situnton the norLh side otl1Harbour Ra.Uwa.y
th:'reon, onto be lefwi Theh Queen's Pnge iu Wharf ('Omm aea.p eo a.ntb~twnter edge
nttendnnce in the Corridor,o.nd the other to of the :::outl1sideof theFloaHa.rbour twenty
be deliveredw the Lorù Chambe rho ail n:i;e yards on thcreaboe3$tof thelanding-plnce
nnnounce thename toHis Royal Hi~hness. of the Gas Works Ferry, thence in an eusterJv
PBESEN'r.l'DONS. direetion for adistancoof sixty-oneyaras or
..À.nyNobleman or Gentleman who proposes to there.:.tbquts b<JUnded·by the Floa.ting Harbonr,
be pr'ese nustd,ave a.tthe Lord Chamber- thence at u.right angle i11southerly direction
lain's Oiiiee, SJa.mes'sPalace, /lefore tmelvefor a distance of eleven yardsor thereabouts
o'clocltwo elear daysbefore the Leveea.card bounded by a wooden fence, theuce nt a rlght
with his na.me written theree.oawith the name . angle in a westerly directfor n distancof
of the Nobleman or Gentleman by whom he is to1fifty-twoya.rds or tberea.bouts bounded by a
be presented. ln order tocarryout the existingwooden fencP. parallel to the water edge of the
regulations that no presentation ca.n bea.tae said Wharf, thence a.t a. right a.ngle in n south
Levee exceptiog by a. petooaetually attending erly direction for n distance of one hundrea and
tba.t Levee,itis a.lsonecessa.ry tha.t an intiforty-se""eu yards or therea.boalong theeast
lion from the Nobleman or Gentleman who iB side of tlte cattle-patbounded by a wooden
to ma.ke the presentation, of his intention tofence, thencen.tn :right nnglé in a.n eo.sterly
present,should aeeom1)any the presentation clll'd direction for a distance of sixyardscor
abo.Je referredto, wbieh will bo submitted to tbereA.bouts along southside of the said Har
The Queen for Her Mnjesty's approbation.1tis hour llit.ilway Whnti bounded by a wooden fenee,
Her lla.jesty'corumand tha.t no presentations thenee in n southerly àiieetion for a dis.tnnee of
shall he ma.de at Levees, exeept in a.ecordanŒtwenty-fouryardllor theren.bouts bounded by a
withthe a.bove regulations. wooùen :feoee, thencin au easterlydirection
It i& partieuJarly requt$ted, that in e'l'crthree yardo or thereahout.s boundedawooden..,
..,...,_
'• i
! (SWINE-F.&vm.) .Fortign.Ojfice,J3~1885.
A T theCormcil r.~utm Wb"ete,alhe 5th THE Queeu has been graciously pleased to
..tl. da.yofJune,1883. · • al?point Ben!)' GraEsq.,- now Her .M.nje$ty's
:By~er Majest:Y"sMost Honouraùle Prlvy OOn,::ul at Napl1:0be Her Majesty's Consul
for Soutltaly.incloding the Soutllern Adi'iutic
- Coonci1. and Snuthern :Mediterrnnean Rt-gions, to reside
HE Lords and othe. B:Rr~"e'sNtyMùSt atNaples.
1· BonourablePrivyConneilby virtue ain The Queen· hasa1aobeeu graclooSlv. pleased
1 exerclsef the powerinthem vested under Thetoappoint .Alexander Roesler Fro.nz, Esq.: now
! Contngi Diosases(.A.ni mct.1878, anof Her :MajestyC1nsul for tProvince ofRome,
cvery other pow~blin them in thbeùalf,do to be Her llnjestyConsul for Central ltaly,
....___ ord~ BJ!~is hereb.r oraered, ns follo~..---tt- he=Prno=vcinl~!o:~J~~~n~g-~coli,
1• - 1. Tlie Mlowing :Aï'ê&tnamely),-int e and ~aeer aores.e,ntRome.
! . county of Edinbu.rgh comprwith tief:low-
f • ing bouudaries, thilto say, on the south the
r road from Sh!,tefordto Edinbuon the west a
f small brook ronnitowar G~orgi and ont;pe
; north and'east the foflGorgie Parlr,-which (C. 2337.)
l was declared by Order of Councildated the
r· · twent,y.:touaay ofApril,ome tho1184Ddeigbt Board of Tradt!, Wlûlehall Gir.rdms,
r· hun«lred and eighty-fi.i'e, to be infected. .Tune2, 188ii.
·1 with. swine-fever, is hereby de(:)~refree THE Board or Trade l•nve receivea from the
Seeretnry Statefor Foreign Aifairs o.Despnteh
froΠswine-fever, antbntAres.sbnD,as from from .Bo_go~!J_! :.lroa~nsgloa~!!-Pecree
:-Ï• __..Jtl..llh tfttisO~rer.JceI~m.....neeof-uietGOvernment of the United States" of
!·- Area infected wiswine-fever. · Colombia.,in Tirtue of which the Customs' dqties
~---- __ 2._T.b.s.~:d.aarJa.ltl'_çttro;tÏ Jtl_!~dm.~~
i dia.teafter the aid.a.nf June, one t.housa.ndit!ïërtor in~tatdcountryupon !be impor-·
!· eight hundred and eightjp1ive. tatioo of a. la.rge number of articles have been
C.L.Ped. con11iderablyinereaaeThe De!!p&tch, wirits
•'.. enclosnre, may be .seen on applicatat- the
-- Uomme:rcla.lDepartment of the Board of Trade.
Forûgn Office,JW,Io,188&. (C. 2365.)-
NOTIFICATION. Boa.ràof Trad,., Wl&iliGczrtkne,
BB.mSa Ps.oTECTOIU.TZ OF THE NIGER DISTs.tcrs• June 2, J885.
T ishereby notified for publie informatio'tHE Board of Trade have reeeived from the
t1at under and by virtue of certain TSecretary of State for Foreis:n Affairsof. COf•Y
I 1
concluded ben'!een the month of .1uly lasta Despatch from Her ::Majeoty's Consul at Saint
the present àa.te, and by other lawful mea.ns, .Pcter:;hurgh, reportin!! that a graduated scale of
the territories on the WeRt Coast of Afriecharges nuder tbe denomina.tion of "'clerical ta.x:''
inafrer n-fetTed to u the Niger 'Districtslml~teenestablisbed ar nll Russian Custom Bouses
placed undcr the Proteetora.te of Ber Majein ncldition to the present le<,;alchn..-ges.
Quecn from the date of the said Treaties resThe following i~the scale on which ·~bese
tively. chn.rges'\\illbe Jevied:· · ·
Tb!' Briùsbrotectorate of the Niger Distri(1.) On ea.ch'dt.oclarationor invoice of imported'
comprises the territoron the line of coa&t. goodOl' elsfor each declaratioor similar
between the BritisProtectoratof Lagos and. doonment rela.tive to ex~oote:-dS
the right or western river-baule of the moutWi1en the amount .of duty is -frrhlscop.
the Rio del Rey.It furtber comprises the tetTi10 rbls. to lC:Orbls••• ••• 0 30
turies on both banka of the Niger,itscon- Ditto from 100 rbls. to SOOrbls. 0 60
1 1lueoce with the River 'Beuuéat Lokoja., to Ditto from SOOrbls. to 1,000 rbls1 00
6ea, u well as the territorics on both balks Wilen tlse duty exceed.s l,000 rb}s.,
Rinr Benué :from the conflacnee, up to lnd tben one~e 1r0rbls.or portion
1 including Ibi. tllereof•••· ••• ••· ••• 0 10 ·
·t The measuresincourse of preparation f,n·1NOTB-Declo.mtions or im·oices of goo<ls,the
aàmini.stzation of justice and the m.ainteduty on wbich is under 10 rbls., nre exempt from
',
' peace nnd good order in the Niger Diswi!lcharge.
be duly notified. and published. relating to el:JgoPd$not lit~iltboducon ·t •
e."':portationon eaclll,OOO rbl:-:.of thcir àeelared. .
~alu eractions of I,OGOrbls. to be reckoned ns a
whole thousand) ••. .•• ••. 2n cap. ·
Fo,.eign.Office,JJa1885. (3.) Ou eneh permit for receh·ing gooà.ilout of
'l'HE Queen has heen graciously ple:toedCustoms' wn.rehouses, or for t-S<"Ortof gonds bv
appoint Dadd Boyle Bla.ir, Esq.tobe Her Customs' officers, includiog permit!>for rect"Ïpt of
Ma.,iestVice-Consul for tl•e Territunder parools forwardcd by p••. 1ô cop.
the Pro1ectorate of Germany, in the Districts of-Permits remtiug to mcrch:mdize, the
tbe Ca.meroons, bounded on the west by the Rio on whïch is under 10 rbls., ure exempt ft·om
charge.
delRey.
ForeignOffice,1-Iay21, 11<85. (4:.On er.ch C•1s.toms'rcceipt note for duty
and otbcr dues paid ..•.• -... 20 cop.
THE Qucen has been ~cions plya.setQ. (5.) For copies of ducumeuts itoprivatc
appoint Harry Lionel Churchill, EsBriti~h persons or public conl}l:mies, pet· sltcet, countiog
Vice- Consul a.t Tehrato be lier Mt9esty's25 lines to each sheet ••• •.. 20 cop.
Vice-Consul in thDominio onth:S~ultan of
Zanzibar. -:~--=-·-- ...•~•--u•- •• •• •• ..J:__••
lnlernalional Boundary by
Anglo-french 1919 and 1931
Declarations
CAMEROONS
INOHTIO!IIIl& ICfJIIIt•tn
\.IIIW. UUt»ttr.IS>ftH~IK.\IIOU
''··")U.f"·)CI
l .... # ....
1--.-~ ..--1.··--.. ---_1 .. .. _..:
;....~'~'':.·:._ :.:.:.·
5S:-::~-~- -n...,,.,.....-=:.•~!:::.;::.:.:
)•
1 i-~·;· .J llsuedbvthe Coloni41Olfice. (CroumCopgrighRu.erv«d.)
Report
·....·.
by His Majesty' s Government in the United Kingdom of
G~ea Btritain- and Northern Ireland to the Co~nc ifl
the League of Nations on the Admi~istr àfttleon
~=. '.
CAMEROONS
UNDER BRITISH MAl'IDATE
For the Year 1930.
(For Reports fol9~8 and l9S9 see .:.YO?t·Pa.rlia.men.taryPubli.c.tdion.z
Colon.ial".;Va.,l9R9, and Colp"i.a.Nt•.54.l940,
priee .Ss.3d. and rnpecliue~y.)
":·::
LONDO:I':
P.RUCTED .C.'"'DPt'BLIBY:B:IS·lJ::l,.JESTI"S S"l'A.TIO!lE&Y OE'E'ICE.
To.\daatrB:ou~eEIDt;2lr. oadon. W.Cno,Georrel;t~eEdinbucl'h;.5 :
Yorlr 5treet.. llaache11ter: 1. Sf.. J.n4re'R'"I Cresc:eat. Cardif:
· 1$,Doae~I Squue \\"en. Belfast:
or throuç.:~Soylueller.
1931.
Pcic~~ud. net.
(Colon~ io.:ô~.tl.}
5$-6..;
. ..·
-~- -), (3) 23rd June, 1&31. Great Bdtaiu and Sau Sa.h·ad01·. Ex
traditiôn Treaty.Accession 8th August. 1080.
. 1 (4) 25th September, 1928. GI:"~ Baiain a.nd Panama •
Treaty of Commerce ~nd ~aviga.t icoes.on lOth .Tune.
1930.
(ü) Internati Frnnilrs.
1 15. The Déclaration of the Boundarv between the British and
! French splieres of the ~Ianda Terrtory of the .Cameroons.
1
l which \'t'assigned ·by the Go\·ernor of tbt! .Colony and l?rot-ectorata
! of Xigeria and by ·the High Commissiouer of the French Republic
1 in the area. under French i\:fandate, was confi.rmed by the respective
! Home Governments early in 1931.
i 16. It isunderstood that this Declaration is ·not the product of
a. boundary commission constitutedfor thepurpose of carryingout
l the provisions of Article I of the )!andabut ouly the result of a·
\ preliminary survey conducted in order to determine more exactly
1
1 tban \'t'asdo·ne in the lfilner-SimoDeclaration of 1919 the Iine
i ultimately to be followed by the boundary commission ; but, n.one
\ the Jess, the Declaration does !n substance define the fronThis.
i Declaration ha\"ing been confirmeù by the tV.'Governments, tbe
! aetua.ldelimitationof the boundarv will now be entrusted to :~
l boundary commission appohuecl for ''thepurp ioa~ccorùance ~·itb
the pro,·isions of Article I of ~Iandate.
1
l IV.-GENERAL ADMIN'lSTRATION.
(1) Ca.meroons Provi.nc".
1 17. The Cameroons Pt·ovince. as in pre\ion-; yea.rs, i;; dh·ided
into four Administrath·e Di\·i:;iuns:-
(1)Victoria;
\ (21 Kumba.:
· (:::\Iamre:
\ {.JBameuda.
1 Each of chefour Divisions is in chr~eof a District Officet·, who is
\ directly responsiblto tb R~esiùcm iÏ1charge oithe Pro,iuce.
lS. The alt.:ration in tbe boundarj· of Victoria and Kumbil.
Divisions. foreshadowed in paragrapb 34 of the 1929 Report. ha~
(. been partiallyc~trr ouiein accordance with the statemeut m:hl~
b.'·tbe Accredited Representative in his address to the Perm:tuem
:\f~md. Cam.mieson during the ex:nmination of thnt Report.
That is to sM·. that the Bakele villazes. on the coast line. and tb-:
fhh towns in. the estuar'\'of the RdelRev ha,·eheen trnnsferreù
from 1\:umba. to VictD -ivison. aThe objéctoi this rrausfei:to
assis& the prevention of sea.;borne contrnbnnd tntde plncingthe
whole coast lii.1of the Pror-ince onder the administrach·ë control
of the Divisionnl Officer. \ïo:.:torio..insr-ead of havinq one part of
the coast in Victoria and the other iu Kumba Di\·ision. The
original intentionco inc:luc::nthe ::ame cimeth~ cerritory of che
ll~30 .!«
Nigeria's reply to the questions put by Judges Fleischhauer, Kooijmans and Elaraby and Nigeria's comments on Cameroon's reply to the questions put by Judge Fleischhauer