Controversy – Nigeria Gained From Loss Of Bakassi Peninsula – Adoke

This may sound controversial, but former Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Adoke argues that Nigeria gained from losing Bakassi peninsula.

Adoke who was also minister of justice said the country also gained from loss of the oil-rich region to her West African neigbour, Cameroun.

His assertion is coming 13 years after the landmark judgment by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling handing over ownership of the oil-rich region to the west African neighbours.

This and more are contained in Adoke’s new book, ”Burden of Service: Reminisces of Nigeria’s Former Attorney General’,

The ruling which led to the dislocation of several Nigerian communities and expression of anguish had been constantly condemned by Nigerians, but Adoke insists that many of those people were actually fighting for their selfish interests,

He mentioned amongst others, a green tree agreement concerning the territory which Nigerian had already endorsed, but which many people were agitating should not be honoured.

“I was later to discover a hidden political agenda to the clamour when I received a letter from some groups reiterating the possibility of applying for a review. All that was needed, they claimed, was for the federal government to pay them $17 million to conduct a research to unearth new and fresh facts that would form the basis of evidence to be presented for a review.

“It dawned on me at that point that the agitation was nothing but a grand scheme to make money!” Adoke said.

On how the loss of the territory was a possible gain rather than a loss, he said:

 “When people talk about the ICJ judgment, not many talk about the enormous gains Nigeria derived from it. For instance, Nigerian gained a lot of landmass particularly on the northern boundary with Cameroun. This is in addition to the fact that a good number of oil wells ended up in the Nigerian territory.

 “I was able to curtail the activities of civil servants who did not want the assignment to come to an end as it would dry up the financial benefit they drew from the estacode payments,” the former minister revealed.

He said one of the things that made reclamation difficult was that thenr president, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo had already signed an agreement with Paul Biya of Cameoun with Kofi Annan as the mediator, and that what remained was an implementation.

According to him “In 2012, with less than six months remaining to approach the ICJ for a possible review of the judgment, there was increased campaign for it.

 In September 2012, while the “Take Back Baakassi” campaign was raging, President Jonathan led the Nigerian delegation, of which I was a member, to the 67th  United Nations General Assembly.

READ ALSO: DINO MELAYE GOES PHILOSOPHICAL AS PDP APPOINTS HIM CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR

“The clamour to rescind the agreement waxed stronger, unabated. In fact, it was reaching a crescendo. Senator Lyel Imoke, then Governor of Cross River State and Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba, then Senate Leader, also from Cross River State, approached me with a request to appeal the ICJ judgment.

“I informed them that Article 60 of the ICJ Statute foreclosed any appeal.

 “The materials they were presenting as new facts were already available and canvassed by the Nigerian legal team before the ICJ. It would, therefore, amount to a worthless exercise to reopen the matter which would only constitute an embarrassment to Nigeria.

“The President had already given an irrevocable assurance to the UN Secretary-General that we were not going back on the issue of Bakassi. I informed them that as a member of the UN, Nigeria was bound by Article 103 of the UN Charter to respect the judgment of the ICJ, which is an organ of the UN.

“I was later to discover a hidden political agenda to the clamour when I received a letter from some groups reiterating the possibility of applying for a review. All that was needed, they claimed, was for the federal government to pay them $17 million to conduct a research to unearth new and fresh facts that would form the basis of evidence to be presented for a review.