Why Bakassi Belongs to Nigeria

Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court. It
is again my privilege to address this honourable and
august Court in opening the second round of oral
presentations for the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
This is a great honour for me, appearing before the
most powerful and the most prestigious court in the
world. I have been associated with this case from its
outset in March 1994.

Before I proceed with my presentation I would like to
acknowledge the presence in court on my left of His
Majesty the Obong of Calabar and his Majesty's Queen,
and his senior Etubul of Bakassi, who is also sitting
on the left of Her Majesty. To give them their full
title, I state as follows: His Majesty Edidem,
Professor Nta Elijah Henshaw VI, the Obong of Calabar,
Treaty King, Natural Ruler and Grand Patriarch of the
Efiks wherever they may be, and on His Majesty's
immediate left is Her Majesty Mrs. Grace Henshaw, and
immediately to the left of Her Majesty is His Royal
Highness Etubom, Okon Etim Okon Asuquo III, who is the
Etinyin Akamba of Bakassi.

Mr. President, I would like to begin with a comment on
some of the remarks made by Cameroon's Co-Agent in his
opening of Cameroon's second round presentation. I
will, if I may, summarize them in English. On the one
hand, he criticizes our team for "not playing the game
at the public hearings" by repeating matters contained
in Nigeria's pleadings. On the other hand, he said
that there were new elements which would raise
eyebrows. He accused us of contradictions and of
trying to ensure that the Court does not rule on
Cameroon's request. He said we claimed to be
consistent but were inconsistent and that our
inconsistencies developed the case in such a way as to
bring us closer together in certain respects.

Mr. President, all these remarks leave me in a state
of some confusion. Nigeria believes in giving the
facts to the Court in an effort to assist the Court in
reaching a decision. We have tried to do this in as
straightforward a way as possible and will leave to
the Court the question of deciding on the validity of
our submissions. Nigeria has nothing to fear from the
Court's scrutiny of its case.

One striking feature of the oral procedure is that it
highlights the credibility of the assertions being
made by each of the Parties. By credibility, Mr.
President, I do not mean relatively minor matters such
as an incorrect statistic or two-such errors can
always be corrected. No, what I am referring to is the
good faith of the Parties. In this respect it is my
sincere belief that the Court, when it analyses all
that has been said and written, will not find Nigeria
wanting. Time and again, however, Nigeria's advocates
have had to highlight issues on which Cameroon seems
either to fail to face up to the truth and invents new
allegations or in some cases avoids the truth
altogether. I shall refer to some of these issues in
my presentation today: others will become apparent
during the presentations of my colleagues.

It is, however, Cameroon which seeks to make out that
Nigeria is a country which cannot be trusted and fails
to keep her word. Nowhere was this more apparent than
in the closing remarks of Cameroon's distinguished
Agent on Tuesday. He made it clear that Cameroon is,
in fact, unable to sit down with Nigeria in the same
room without third parties being present "to see fair
play". This is a remarkable assertion, Mr. President,
and one which has greatly saddened the Nigerian team.

It will not have escaped the Court's notice that,
fortunately, Nigeria's other neighbours do not seem to
suffer from the same paranoia. The examples of
Nigeria's treaties with Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome
and Principe give the lie to Cameroon's assertion that
Nigeria is an impossible neighbour. Yet, Cameroon
cannot bear to see these examples of Nigeria's
willingness to encourage international co-operation.
We are accused of having used threats or worse in
order to bully our neighbours into submitting to these
treaties.

Mr. President and Members of the Court, Equatorial
Guinea will be able to speak for herself during the
intervention round next week. Sao Tome and Principe is
not before the Court- to Cameroon's apparent regret.
Nigeria regrets that too. If Sao Tome and Principe had
been before the Court she would have been able to tell
the Court how the two countries have negotiated one of
the largest joint development zones in the world in
which resources will be shared on a 60/40 basis: that
is, 60 per cent will go to Nigeria, with a population
of 120 million at least, and 40 per cent will go to
Sao Tome and Principe which has a population of
approximately 120,000. Such generosity on the part of
Nigeria does not send out the message of a bullying
State or a bullying neighbour.

In addition to the treaties I have just referred to,
Mr. President, Nigeria is, as has been mentioned,
negotiating a maritime boundary treaty with her
western neighbour, that is, the Republic of Benin.
When the result of those negotiations is seen, Nigeria
does not think that she will be accused of having
pressurized her much smaller neighbour into an unfair
or inequitable bargain.

As to Nigeria's other boundaries, Nigeria and Benin
have a Joint Boundary Commission which meets on a
regular basis and is making real progress with
resolving issues on their common boundary. The same
goes for Nigeria's northern neighbour, the Republic of
Niger. The National Boundary Commission is tackling
these boundaries with all the benefits of modern
technology, including GPS and satellite imagery. Maps
that are being used are at a scale of 1:50,000 and
are, for the most part, maps produced by DOS and IGN.
There are issues relating to villages which are "on
the line", yet these issues are being resolved
amicably in a constructive atmosphere unhampered by
fear, despite the disparity in the sizes of the
respective populations.

Mr. President, so where is Cameroon's problem? Instead
of sitting down with Nigeria, she has felt it
necessary to come before this honourable Court and
involve both Parties in lengthy proceedings involving
huge expenses. At the end of the day, she asks the
Court to set up some kind of arbitration procedure
involving third parties. Mr. President, you will be
hearing more from my colleagues concerning these
proposals. I would just like to place on record that
Nigena finds it extraordinary that Cameroon seems now
not only to be unable to trust Nigeria but now, also,
she seems unable to trust the outcome of these
proceedings, at least in so far as they relate to the
land and maritime boundaries.

Following these remarks, I would like to move on to
some of the specific issues raised in these
proceedings and do so not only as a member of
Nigeria's legal team since the inception of the case
in March 1994, but also as a former Attorney-General
and Minister of Justice of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria during the last civilian government, that of
President Shehu Shagari, who was in power from 1979 to
1983.

I think it is quite true to say, Mr. President and
Members of the Court, that when President Shagari came
to power, our relations with our neighbour Cameroon
were cordial. Negotiations on boundary issues, many of
which were listed by me during the course of the
hearing on Nigeria's second preliminary objection,
were proceeding much as they had always done. There
were joint committees of technical experts, political
meetings and joint confidence-building measures.
Progress may have been relatively slow, but this
stemmed in part from the fact that there was no hint
of any real trouble along our extensive common land
boundary.

Bakassi

A11 this changed dramatically in May 1981. The
incident of 16 May 1981 has been referred to right
from the start of these proceedings. Nigeria, I
believe, demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that
Cameroon was the aggressor, yet Cameroon still
attempts to paint the incident in different colours.
What I can be sure about, Mr. President, and Members
of the Court, is the effect it had on President
Shagari's Government. That Government was galvanized.
Out of the blue Nigeria had a neighbour, whom she had
previously regarded as friendly, ambushing and killing
members of her armed forces. The outrage in Nigeria
was huge: President Shagari's Cabinet met in urgent
session. It was a clear act of provocation on the part
of Cameroon which might have had very serious
consequences. But, in the event, Nigeria was not
provoked. We decided to give Cameroon the chance to
apologize. Cameroon, sensibly, took that chance. But a
marker had been laid down. In my own case, as Minister
of Justice and the Attorney-General, I resolved to
probe more deeply into the legal situation regarding
our common boundary. I caused extensive research to be
undertaken. That research was still continuing when
President Shehu Shagari's Government was overthrown by
the military at the end of 1983.

In conducting that research, I came, in particular, to
realize that Cameroon had a potential claim to Bakassi
based on the 1913 Treaty. At the same time, however, I
knew that there was something radically wrong here.
Bakassi was, and so far as I was aware, had always
been, regarded by Nigerians as being part of Nigeria.
It was inhabited by Nigerians and it was governed by
Nigerians forming part of the local government area in
that region. There had not, so far as I was aware,
been a Cameroonian claim to Bakassi as such. Over the
years that followed, and in particular during the
course of the preparation of Nigeria's written
pleadings, I have become aware of the existence of one
or two Protest Notes but I can honestly say that, at
the time I was in office as Attorney-General, Bakassi
had not, until May 1981, been regarded as a problem.

Mr. President, in retrospect this seems the more
amazing when one considers the prominence which
Cameroon has given to the 1975 Maroua Declaration in
these proceedings.

I would like, if I may, to give my own perception of
Maroua. In doing so, I should say that it is, I
believe, a perception which is shared by many
Nigerians. The Maroua Declaration was made on the 1
June 1975. Less than two months later, to be exact in
July 1975, General Yakubu Gowon was overthrown in a
bloodless military coup.

It was not long before Nigerians began to question the
validity of the Maroua Declaration and, in particular,
General Gowon's ability under the Constitution to have
bound Nigeria to it. You will hear more on the
constitutional position later in our presentations.
What is quite clear, however, is that in 1978, in the
Nigerian city of Jos, Nigeria had made it absolutely
clear to Cameroon that she did not regard Maroua as
being binding upon her. Cameroon has accepted that
this was the position.

Mr. President and Members of the Court, I have to say
that there were many practical reasons for Nigeria not
to regard Maroua as a binding instrument, quite apart
from the constitutional issues. One glance at the map
on the screen and at tab 1 of the judges' folder will
show the causes of Nigeria's concerns.

Mr. President, the Court has been shown variations of
this map many times during the course of these
proceedings. There are four major rivers which drain
into the Cross River estuary. There is the Cross River
itself, there is the Calabar River, the Kwa River and
there is the Akwa Yafe River. The estuary gives access
to Calabar, a large Nigerian city which was very
nearly made the capital of Nigeria, but Lagos was
chosen instead. At Calabar Nigeria has a major naval
base. Nigerian navy vessels proceed up and down the
estuary on a daily basis. The estuary is approximately
20 km wide. Any vessel passing up and down the estuary
is well within gunshot of either bank of the estuary.

The implications are obvious, Mr. President. Can
Nigeria seriously contemplate having a major part of
her fleet passing up and down a narrow stretch of
water on a regular basis beneath the guns of Cameroon?
It is just not credible from a practical, military
point of view.

Yet this would be the practical result if the Maroua
Declaration were to be regarded as conferring
sovereignty over Bakassi on Cameroon.

Nigeria admits that there is, for Cameroon, an access
problem as far as the Akwa Afe River is concerned.
This watercourse forms, for most of its length, a
major land boundary. It would seem obvious that both
Nigeria and Cameroon should have equal access to the
river which divides them. In reality, however, the
majority of Cameroonian traffic which comes up the
Cross River estuary is bound for Calabar. Very little
Cameroonian traffic, in fact, goes up the Akwa Yafe
which is, in any event, only navigable for about 50
lan before reaching the first set of rapids. This is
probably because there is not much need for it to do
so as Calabar, with all its markets, is the major
local commercial centre.

Nigeria would have had no objection in principle to
access to the Akwa Yafe being granted to the normal
river traffic of Cameroon or indeed boats of any other
nationality, subject to proper controls. I understand
that the Court in the recent case of Kasikili/Sedudu
Island between Namibia and Botswana recognized, of its
own volition, access to the Botswanan southern channel
of the Chobe River by Namibian tourist boats. Nigeria
would have no difficulty with a similar arrangement
granting access to the Akwa Yafe.

I said earlier that I commissioned research into the
legal status of the Nigeria-Cameroon boundary. As a
result of my efforts a considerable body of
documentary evidence was amassed. I was, as I said,
never able to take the matter very much further
forward because of the downfall of the Government. I
think however it is worth making two points here. The
first is that, even at that early stage, I did have
cause to look at the earlier Treaties of Protection
and I was struck by the same thought that has been
articulated so effectively by Sir Arthur Watts. As a
common-law lawyer, I was unable to "trace title" from
the Kings and Chiefs to Germany via Great Britain. The
Roman doctrine "nemo dat quod non habet" is a basic
concept in every legal system, as far as I know. The
second point I would like to make is that, with all
due respect to my learned predecessor in office as
Attorney General, Dr. T. O. Elias, and his stature as
a public international lawyer, I have no means of
knowing what materials he had at his disposal when he
wrote that opinion. A lawyer's opinion is only as good
as his briefing.

Following the military coup at the end of 1983, I had
effectively to live abroad for the next ten years or
so. Whilst I thought from time to time about the
Bakassi situation, I was not aware of outward change.
Nigerian citizens continued to live in peace on
Bakassi as far as I was aware. No doubt there
continued to be occasional harassment by Cameroon
gendarmes but, in a way, there was nothing new in
that. It was well known that Cameroon gendarmes were
poorly paid and that the Nigerians living in Bakassi
and, indeed, in other border regions, were hard
working and, relatively speaking, prosperous.

26. Mr. President, one has only to look at the fishing
fleet sailing from West Atabong to see that these are
serious fishermen-we counted nearly 100 1arge canoes
on our field trip in 1997. If you visit mainland
Atabong you will see not only large open ferry boats
transferring people to and from the mainland to the
Atabongs on Bakassi-that is West Atabong and East
Atabong-but also huge quantities of fish being landed
and loaded into refrigerated trucks to be transported
inland. Fish is, and has always been, an important
staple in the Nigerian diet.

By contrast, as I know from having spoken to the
Nigerian fishermen on our field trips, there is no
great activity by Cameroon fishermen along the coast.
At West Atabong we have fishermen from as far afield
as Ghana, Benin and Togo, fishing freely alongside
Nigerians in the waters in and around Bakassi. Seldom,
if ever, do Cameroon fishermen appear. When they do
appear Nigeria does not shoot them. Regrettably, that
has not been the case with our neighbours, as
Nigeria's counter-claims have shown, and by that
"neighbour" we mean Cameroon. In any event, the
existence of a peaceful, well organized and relatively
prosperous community living near the borders of
Nigeria has, over the years, been an irresistible
target for Cameroonian officials intent on traditional
methods of supplementing their no doubt meagre
personal income.

The Court has seen the photographs of Bakassi provided
by Nigeria. It has also seen the short video. The
Court will therefore have some understanding of the
topography of the area. Cameroon's counsel called into
question the descriptions of Bakassi vegetation given
by Nigeria in various pleadings and in her first round
speeches. He also called into question the ability of
the area to support the population claimed by Nigeria.

It is regrettable, but perhaps unsurprising, that
Cameroon, although she claims to administer the
territory, has not been able to produce any visual
evidence of her activity on Bakassi, either present or
past. Had Cameroon been able to see for itself how the
population on Bakassi is distributed, it would not
have made the comments that it did.

Cameroon's counsel did a rough calculation of the area
of Bakassi and came up with entertaining analogies
between Bakassi, the Netherlands and Manhattan.
Interestingly, he was probably closer to the mark with
his Manhattan analogy than with the Netherlands, which
he described as Europe's most densely populated
country. One does not have to go very far out of The
Hague, or even within The Hague itself, to see that
houses occupy large sites, many have gardens and in
the country they are frequently surrounded by acres of
glasshouses and tulip fields.

Mr. President and Members of the Court, Bakassi is not
like that. The houses, many of which are built of
light materials such as cane and palm leaves, are
literally cheek by jowl. It is difficult often to tell
where one house ends and the next house begins. The
scarcity of land makes it necessary to utilize every
available square metre. If you look at the settlements
comprising houses on stilts, you can see those houses
stretching for perhaps 1 km or more along the
riverside with serried ranks of houses behind. A small
example of this type of village is shown on screen now
and at tab 2 in the judges' folder [graphic 2: stilt
village]. Each house will contain a fisherman, his
wife or wives and children, grandparents and perhaps
members of the extended family as well, in the African
tradition. Even on Manhattan they do not pack people
in like that, do they?

Mr. President and Members of the Court, the same is
true of the land utilization on dry land at places
like the Atabongs-that is West Atabong and East
Atabong-and at Abana. Those are settlements which are
built on low-lying sandy promontories. The streets are
so narrow that if you stretched out both arms you
would touch the buildings on the other side. This is
the reality of the villages nestling in the mangrove
areas.

Of course, as one moves north, as the Court has seen
from the map of Bakassi which has been shown so
frequently, towns like Archibong are no longer in the
mangrove belt and that is why one saw extensive areas
of green open spaces near the schools in the video
presentation.

34. By the time I returned to Nigeria in late 1993,
the situation in Bakassi had clearly deteriorated
considerably. In fact, so much had it gone bad that
the Government felt it necessary, as we know, to send
in army detachments in order to protect the local
population and in order to quell unrest that had
arisen as the result of the competing claims of Cross
River and Akwa Ibom states-both of them in Nigeria. In
no sense could that be termed an invasion, as Cameroon
is so

fond of describing it. There had always been Nigerian
troops in the area, as the incident of 1981
demonstrates. The resources were increased at the end
of 1993 because of perceived threats to Nigerian
sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula.

35. Cameroon's claims to the substantial Nigerian
population which lives on Bakassi are just
incomprehensible to Nigeria. Mr. President, as
Cameroon has been fond of saying in these proceedings,
she always "offers hospitality" to a substantial
Nigerian population in Cameroon. Why does she want
more Nigerians to join the party? In particular, why
should she want a large group of Nigerians who clearly
feel very strongly about their nationality and ties to
Nigeria? It seems to me that Cameroon would only be
storing up trouble for herself with the people of
Bakassi if she were to succeed in her claims.

Mr. President and Members of the Court, Cameroon, at
one point, charactenzed Nigeria's so-called
"occupation" of Bakassi as being motivated by greed
for its mineral resources. This analysis ignores the
tremendous good fortune Nigeria enjoys of the rich
hydrocarbon resources to be found in the Niger delta
area and out to sea where the seabed once formed part
of the same delta structure. Nigeria really has no
need, and commercial companies certainly have no
desire, to exploit areas on the margin of Mount
Cameroon basalt ridge where oil and gas are relatively
scarce and, what is more, expensive to extract. The
harsh fact is that Bakassi is not, and has never been,
an area of high prospectivity.

We have seen from the figures produced by Cameroon in
its final round of pleadings, the tremendous imbalance
in oil reserves between Cameroon and Nigeria. This is
clearly unfortunate for Cameroon. However, even if any
reserves which might lie under Bakassi were one day
deemed to be commercially viable, it is hard to
imagine that they would make any significant
difference to Cameroon reserves. Any theoretical gain
has to be set against the potential disruption of the
lives of many thousands of Nigerians in this
generation and for generations to come.

Mr. President, that brings to an end my submissions
relating specifically to Bakassi. I would like,
however, if I may, to move on briefly to Lake Chad.
Lake Chad

Mr. President and distinguished Members of the Court,
Cameroon's claims to the former bed of Lake Chad and
certain islands in what currently remains of the lake
follow a similar pattern to the claims she has made
over Bakassi. As Mr. Brownlie, Q.C., has so clearly
and brilliantly explained, this is an area over which
title has yet to be determined. It is, in the areas
claimed by Nigeria, inhabited by a population of
farmers and fishermen who come mainly from Nigena and
not at all from Cameroon. When the legal team visited
Darak in 1997 we could not fail to be impressed by the
fact that we were surrounded not by just a few
Nigerians but literally by hundreds as we walked
towards the main settlement on the island. As you can
see from the photograph now on screen and at tab 3 in
the judges' folder, the Darak crowds could be seen;
all of them Nigerians. [Graphic: Darak crowds.

Darak is a major population centre and it looks to the
Nigerian Government, both local and federal, as well
as the State Government, for its governance. This is
true of all the villages which we visited on our trip
across the Lake bed. Any visitor to the area will
readily see that every village owes its allegiance to
Nigeria and, as our account of the administration of
the area has shown, it is Nigeria that looks after the
population in terms of security, health care and
education, as well as collecting tax.

Once again, Mr. President and Members of Court,
Nigeria never had any cause to doubt her own
sovereignty over this area until it was characterized
as territory which had been "illegally occupied" in
Cameroon's protest Note of 11 April 1994. There had,
again, been sporadic attempts by local Cameroonian
forces to raise taxes and even an attempted military
occupation. This military action by Cameroon does not
appear to have been preceded by any diplomatic moves.
If central government in Cameroon had really been
concerned about what it now claims to be illegal
occupation, one would have expected to see protests,
or, at the very least, the matter being raised by the
Cameroon representatives in the LCBC. Nigeria's legal
team has scoured the minutes of LCBC meetings since
the inception of the Commission and those minutes are
lodged at the Court for all to see. Nowhere in them
does Cameroon raise the issue of illegal occupation.
On the contrary, Cameroon's security forces patrol
with the Nigerian forces in an evident show of
solidarity in the area.

Once again, as with Bakassi, one is at a loss to
understand why Cameroon wishes to absorb this large
Nigerian population which is currently being
successfully administered from Nigeria at no cost to
Cameroon. There is, not even, so far as is presently
known, the lure of oil in this particular area of Lake
Chad.

One is forced also to take note of what is said in the
report of the Special Rapporteur submitted to the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights in November
1999. This document has been lodged with the Court by
Nigeria. The Court may have noted in particular the
report of the lawless situation the Special Rapporteur
found especially in Northern Cameroon. Mr. President,
Members of the Court, I venture to say that private
armies operating under local chiefs are not an
attractive prospect for the maintenance of law and
order amongst the Nigerian population in Darak and in
the surrounding villages. Other matters

I shall now move on very briefly to the other aspects
of this case. Nigeria's eminent counsel have
demonstrated in a clear, calm way, how Cameroon's
claims in this case are based on bluster and unfounded
assertion. They have shown how Cameroon, even in these
proceedings, has had to back off when she comes up
against the harsh reality of the facts. In the
memorable words of Sir Arthur Watts, Q.C., on the
final day of Nigeria's first round presentation:

"Cameroon having abandoned its claim to Tipsan, and
having abandoned

individual responsibility claims, and having tried to
abandon its request to have the land boundary
specified definitively, and having abandoned a
succession of its earlier maritime boundary lines, the
remnants of Cameroon's case are looking rather
tattered"

The proposals made by Cameroon's distinguished Agent
on Tuesday referred to by me at the beginning of my
speech seem rather to confirm Sir Arthur's view of
Cameroon's claims.

Land boundary

I need not remind the Court that the whole land
boundary issue came before the Court, despite
Nigeria's fifth preliminary objection, largely on the
basis that there was alleged to be a dispute over the
border at Tipsan, which now turns out not to be so.

On our 1997 field trip we also visited some locations
on the land boundary. We had hoped to visit Tipsan
ourselves but the length of the journey from Yola
proved to be such that we were only able to get as far
as Toungo, which is about 24 miles short of Tipsan.
The state of the roads was so that further progress
would only have resulted in our arriving at night. We
were thus not able, on that occasion, to take
photographs, unlike counsel for Cameroon. However, as
the Court knows from the preliminary objections, we
did visit Lip and were mistaken by our opponents for
having been a Nigerian raiding party. We took
photographs of the hills surrounding Lip and it is
possible from those photographs to see what complex
and remote terrain this is. As you can see from the
photograph on screen, and at tab 4 in the judges'
folder, this is rough country. And the graphic is now
being shown, of the hills beyond Lip [graphic 4: Hills
beyond Lip]. Mr. President, it was a two-day journey
to Lip and two days back. All I can say as a lay
person is that, having seen some of these locations, I
would hate to see a boundary commission carrying out a
demarcation without having clear guidance from the
delimitation treaty as to where I should start and
finish my demarcation exercise.

Mr. President and Members of the Court, time and again
Cameroon has asserted that incidents have taken place
on the border which, on further investigation, turn
out to be little more than what might be termed
"cattle rustling". Nigeria comprehensively demolished
the State responsibility claims made by Cameroon in
its Memonal and Observations on Nigeria's Preliminary
Objections. She has comprehensively demolished the
further claims made in Cameroon's Reply and she has
comprehensively demolished the later claims that
Cameroon has made by correspondence and other means.

Mr. President, I talked about credibility at the
beginning of this speech. I do with respect submit
that Cameroon has a serious credibility problem with
regard to these claims.

I do not claim to be a maritime boundary expert.
During my period in office as Attorney- General and
the Minister of Justice, I sat for four years as the
leader of the Nigerian delegation to the Law of the
Sea Convention negotiating sessions and I signed that
treaty as well as the Final Act at Montego Bay on
behalf of Nigeria. My understanding of Cameroon's
claims is that, as presently expressed, they would cut
into well-established Nigerian offshore oilfields.
Were this to be permitted, Mr. President and Members
of the Court, Nigeria would presumably face
compensation claims from oil operators running into
billions of dollars. This is not something Nigeria can
face with equanimity. However, we also saw from
Professor Crawford's presentations that Cameroon's
claims do not accord with any known precept of
international maritime boundary law, so it may be that
Nigerian fears on this account are unfounded.

Mr. President and Members of the Court, before I
conclude my presentation and inform the Court how
Nigeria proposes to spend the remaining time in this
second round, I would like, with respect, to mention
that His Majesty the Obong of Calabar, whom I
introduced at the beginning of this presentation, will
be assisting the Nigerian team with answers to some of
the questions posed by Judge Kooijmans. The Obong is
the Grand Patriarch of the Efiks. The loss of Bakassi
would be a serious matter for Nigeria: the loss for
the Obong of Calabar would be, proportionately, of an
even greater magnitude.

Following my presentation, Ian Brownlie, Q.C., will be
dealing with Bakassi from independence. That will
complete the morning session.

This afternoon, Alastair Macdonald will speak again on
the land boundary and he will be followed by Sir
Arthur Watts, Q.C., also speaking on the land boundary
and on Bakassi prel960. The afternoon session will
finish with Ian Brownlie, Q.C., speaking on Lake Chad.

Mr. President and Members of the Court, tomorrow
Professor Georges Abi-Saab will open on State
responsibility. That subject will again be taken up by
Sir Arthur Watts, Q.C., and he will be followed by
Professor James Crawford, S.C., on counter-claims.
Professors Abi-Saab and Crawford will then address the
maritime boundary, and our presentations will be
brought to a close by Nigeria's Agent.

_____________________
·  Chief Akinjide, Second Republic Attorney General
presented this address at the International Court of
Justice at The Hague on the Bakassi case March 2002.