In a significant development concerning national sovereignty and territorial integrity, the Nigerian Federal Government has suspended a controversial plan to transfer over 10,000 hectares of land to the Republic of Cameroon. This decision follows intense scrutiny and parliamentary intervention sparked by allegations of improper boundary demarcation that threatened to cede Nigerian territory, including vital communities.
The revelation was made by Mr. Victor Abang, the lawmaker representing the Ikom/Boki Federal Constituency in Cross River State, during a constituency briefing in Keyang II. Abang’s disclosure sheds light on a complex international issue rooted in a decades-old legal ruling and colonial history, which nearly resulted in a substantial territorial loss for Nigeria.
The Legal and Historical Backdrop: From 1913 to 2002
At the heart of this dispute lies the 2002 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning the protracted border conflict between Nigeria and Cameroon, primarily over the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula. While that ruling famously awarded Bakassi to Cameroon, it also mandated that the entire land boundary be definitively demarcated in accordance with the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty.
This treaty, established between the colonial powers of Britain (administering Nigeria) and Germany (administering Cameroon), defined the boundary using physical features like rivers and watersheds, and man-made markers known as boundary pillars. The current controversy stems from the work of the Nigeria-Cameroon Mixed Commission, a joint implementation committee tasked with physically marking the border on the ground based on these documents.
The Point of Contention: Ignoring Pillar 113A
According to Abang, the committee’s demarcation efforts went awry by failing to respect established colonial boundary features, most notably “Pillar 113A.” This pillar is a legally recognized demarcation point between the two nations. By allegedly disregarding this and other markers, the proposed new boundary line would have shifted significantly in Cameroon’s favour.
The practical consequence would have been the loss of more than 10,000 hectares (approximately 100 square kilometres) of Nigerian territory. This area is not empty land; it encompasses parts of the Biajua and Danare communities in Boki Local Government Area. Such a cession would have displaced communities, altered livelihoods, and represented a significant national loss.
Parliamentary Intervention and the Path Forward
The halt to this process is a direct result of legislative action. On July 5, 2023, Hon. Abang presented a motion before the House of Representatives detailing the threat. The House deliberated and subsequently pressured the executive branch to suspend the demarcation exercise pending a comprehensive and transparent review.
This episode highlights the critical role of legislative oversight in foreign policy and territorial matters. It also raises important questions about the demarcation process itself: Was the error a technical oversight, or does it reflect a deeper disagreement over the interpretation of historical maps and treaties? The promised review must involve not just surveyors and diplomats, but also historians and, crucially, representatives from the affected local communities whose ancestral lands are at stake.
Broader Context: The Lawmaker’s Advocacy for Boki
Abang’s briefing also served to highlight his broader advocacy for the Ikom/Boki constituency. Beyond this border issue, he presented a scorecard including constituency projects like a mini-stadium and telecom masts. Notably, he sponsored the National Park Service Amendment Bill, which aims to establish the Okwangwo Division of the Cross River National Park as an independent entity.
This legislative effort is deeply connected to the border issue. The proposed ceded land is in the ecologically sensitive Cross River rainforest region. Granting the Okwangwo unit more autonomy could strengthen environmental conservation and, by extension, Nigeria’s stewardship and claim over this biodiverse border region, enhancing its “economic, ecological and developmental value” for local communities as Abang stated.
Conclusion: The suspension of the land cession is a temporary reprieve, not a permanent solution. It underscores the delicate and often contentious process of implementing international court rulings on the ground. The outcome of the federal government’s review will be a major test of Nigeria’s commitment to protecting its territorial integrity while fulfilling its international legal obligations. The situation remains a poignant reminder of how colonial-era decisions continue to shape modern African borders and the lives of border communities.
Edited for clarity and context. Source: NAN News.
