NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET: THE LEGALITY OF THE 1913 AGREEMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR JUDGMENT BASED THEREON IN THE CAMEROON-NIGERIA BORDER DISPUTE

Dissatisfaction and disaffection have persisted in the Bight of Biafra following the widely alleged miscarriage of justice in the Cameroon-Nigeria border dispute, especially as it concerned the Bakassi Peninsula. Thus, the legality of the 1913 Agreements and the judgment founded thereon in the said dispute has remained a source of concern to critical minds in jurisprudence, international law and politics. Therefore, the objectives of the study included, to identify the legal interpretation of a protectorate; to describe the tenor of 1884 Treaty of Protection; to ascertain the cause of the Cameroon-Nigeria boundary dispute and contention over ownership of the Bakassi Peninsula in particular; to verify the validity of the 1913 Agreements and their implications for the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) judgment based thereon. As a doctrinal research, we relied only on statutory and judicial authorities and other secondary materials for our data, which, as it should, were content analyzed. The results of our analysis included that a protectorate is neither a colony nor did they said 1884 Treaty create one, so that any agreement, including especially the 1913 Agreements, contrary to that tenor, or judgment based thereon, were illegal and invalid. Among others, were recommended that unilateral alteration of treaties by parties thereto, under any guise, should not be allowed; that Article 61 of the ICJ Statute, among others, should be amended to re-open the revision window to enable Nigeria apply for the reversal or over-ruling of the award of the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon based on the ultra vires 1913 Agreements. Also, the parties should resort to diplomatic options in resolving their border dispute in order to ensure enduring peace, security and wellbeing in the region.