‘Nigeria needed not submit to ICJ jurisdiction on Bakassi’

Former Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice in Cross River State, Mr Eyo Ekpo during Mr Donald Duke’s second tenure between 2003 to 2007 spoke to some journalists, calling on INEC to implement the recent Supreme Court judgement on delineating the Bakassi and Akpabuyo boundaries so that the people there can now have power to […]

Former Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice in Cross River State, Mr Eyo Ekpo during Mr Donald Duke’s second tenure between 2003 to 2007 spoke to some journalists, calling on INEC to implement the recent Supreme Court judgement on delineating the Bakassi and Akpabuyo boundaries so that the people there can now have power to vote. Excerpts:

The judgment of 26th of February on Bakassi /Akpabuyo vs INEC has seen both sides claiming victory, what do you think about the judgement?

To get a clear perspective on that judgment by the Supreme Court requires a bit of background history. The subject of that decision by the Supreme Court was based on law No 7 of 2007 that was passed by the Donald Duke administration in its dying days. That law essentially resets the boundary of Akpabuyo Local Government Area to accommodate the people of Bakassi that left Cameroon as a result of the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague.  

How valid is ICJ judgement on Nigeria?

The ICJ cases started in 1994. It was Cameroon that took Nigeria to the ICJ and we submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.  One thing about the ICJ is that you don’t have to submit yourself to its jurisdiction but once you do, you are bound to accept its judgment because it is a United Nations Court. And if you are a member of the United Nations you must accept it. The case was about recreating the boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon, what people do not know is that we got a good chunk of that judgment in our favour but what we did not get was the part that affects us here in Cross River State. The boundary delineation started from Borno through Adamawa to Taraba states down to the Bakassi. The people that lived there were given the choice of remaining in Cameroon or coming back to Nigeria, of course most came home to Nigeria. 

 How did Cross River first assuage their plight?

To ameliorate their suffering, the state government used its constitutional power to readjust boundaries of local government. It passed a law 7 0f 2007 that readjusted the Akpabuyo Local Government Area to excise three wards of Ikang in Akpabuyo and named them Bakassi.

So, what is the crux of the matter now between INEC and the people who took the agency to court?

Now, the law being passed and the area becoming Bakassi, we have to remember that there exists the federal constituency called Akpabuyo/Calabar South/ Bakassi with a member in the National Assembly representing those three local government areas. Because of the Bakassi decision, the boundary of that constituency was affected but the state government does not have the power to adjust federal constituency, that is an Independent Electoral Commission responsibility and they had not done that.

  So, three clan heads who are indigenes of Bakassi took INEC to court, insisting that the delineation of boundary automatically was also delineation of federal constituency.  The case went from the High Court to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in its ruling said the delineation of boundary by the Cross River State House of Assembly was right and proper under section 4 and 7 of the Constitution. It said also that does not automatically mean that the federal constituency boundary lines have also been redrawn for the purpose of election for which INEC should depend in conducting elections. 

It was half and half. The ruling said by section 112, 113, and 114 of the Constitution that power is resident in INEC. However, what is important is that the court also counsels INEC as a matter of urgency to activate its power under section 112, 113, 114 of the 1999 Constitution to do the needful by delineating the Bakassi and Akpabuyo boundary based on the 2007 law bearing in mind that the people of Bakassi have lost their land and are now refugees in their own country, having lost their source of livelihood, should not at the same time lose their right to political representation. 

This could be their consolation .There should be no grandstanding. This clarion call on INEC could not have been timelier than when the country is gearing for the 2019 elections.

The court’s ruling did not compel INEC to delineate the boundary but advisory. What if INEC fails to do it?

The courts call on INEC “to as a matter of urgency “delineate the boundary between Akpabuyo and Bakassi though on an advisory note, INEC should obey. Supreme Court judgment is on issues.  The ruling is based on whether or not the people of Bakassi need political representation but when you read the judgement, you see that the people of Bakassi do not have representation because INEC has not delineated their boundary which they should. 

 Technically the Bakassi area that was in Akpabuyo / Bakassi/Calabar South federal constituency is now in Cameroon and INEC cannot go to that area to conduct election for the people of Bakassi. Like the court said if you conduct the 2019 election without dilating the boundary, the people of Bakasssi will not be part of the election

The point being made by the passionate and conscionable judgment here is that if the 2019 election is conducted without INEC delineating the boundary between Bakassi and Akapbuyo, the Bakassi people will all be disenfranchised because INEC cannot go to Cameroon to conduct election for the Bakassi Local Government Area which has been excised into Cameroon and announce to the whole world that this is the polling unit for the Bakassi Local Government Area.