PAUL ARKWRIGHT
AND THE INDIVISIBILITY OF NIGERIA: A
LESSON IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
|
| Nnamdi Kanu IPOB Leader |
IPOB Press
Statement
12th April 2017
PAUL ARKWRIGHT
AND THE INDIVISIBILITY OF NIGERIA: A
LESSON IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
We Indigenous
People of Biafra (IPOB) worldwide led by
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu wish to state that the substance of this press statement is
traceable to the diplomatic blunder committed by no less a person than the
British High Commissioner to Nigeria, His Excellency, Mr. Paul Arkwright
recently in Kogi State of Nigeria where he was reported to have delivered a
public lecture on the topic: "Brexit: Lessons, Challenges and
Opportunities for Nigeria" at the Federal University, Lokoja, on Thursday,
6th April, 2017.
From our very
careful observation, we are of the view that two factors could have been
responsible for Mr. Arkwright’s uncharacteristic diplomatic blunder. The first
that immediately comes to mind is ignorance and the second, which is equally
unfortunate, even more so than the first, is mischief. Riding on these
assumptions, we shall now take the liberty of this press statement to address
these two possible inadequacies which His Excellency might be suffering from
and to clear every doubt his stance may have engendered in the minds of a
largely undiscerning and docile populace.
PRESUMED IGNORANCE:
We would want
to presume that the statement of Mr. Arkwright may have been influenced by that
opening phrase in the Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar (Nigerian) 1999 Constitution
which reads as follows: “We the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
Having firmly and solemnly resolved, to live in unity and harmony as one
indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation under God,…”
We make haste
therefore to inform Mr. Arkwright that even the most poorly lettered man on the
streets of Lokoja (venue of Mr. Arkwright’s public lecture) agree that the
Amended Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar 1999 Constitution lied about itself and that
the first lie in that Constitution is the wasteful phrase: “We the people”.
It is the duty
of IPOB to clear the illusions this deceptive
phrase might have planted in the pliable mind of Mr. Arkwright and others like
him. No doubt, the above phrase seeks to convey the misleading impression that
ordinary people of Nigeria willingly in a conference, meeting or assembly
convened by Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar somewhere in Abuja in 1999 agreed to vest
immutable non-negotiable sovereignty on the Nigerian nation through the
instrumentality of the said 1999 Constitution. This is a blatant lie, deception
and fraud concocted by self serving individuals in Nigeria to deceive
themselves and those not enlightened enough to know what is being done in their
name.
Not minding the
obvious limitations and inherent defects of the Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar 1999
Constitution by virtue of the lie "We the people....." preamble, we
recognise the centrality of sovereignty in the field of International law.
However, as rigid and important as this concept may be to the proponents of One
Nigeria, it still admits and recognises some notable exceptions. It is therefore
not immutable and cannot as a result be construed in absolute terms. In other
words, sovereignty of states under international law is not cast in iron and
can be broken or dissolved.
The point IPOB
is making here is to the effect that, in the exercise of the sovereign powers
bestowed on it, an artificial creation like the
Nigerian state or indeed any other country, can limit its own
sovereignty or surrender a part of same. The truth as it stands today is that
the Nigerian state, has out of its own volition already surrendered Nigerian
sovereignty over Bakassi Peninsular, which therefore enables any part of
Nigeria or section thereof to secede when they so decide, contrary to the
wishes and ambitions of the neo-colonialists like Mr. Arkwright. This is equally true and
remains same for even Great Britain whom Mr. Arkwright represents in Nigeria.
Let us explain.
We will use
English judicial authorities to convey the message home to the British Envoy before we turn to the Nigerian judicial
authorities. In the case of Blackburn vs. Attorney-General, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [1971] EWCA
Civ J0510-2, [1971] 1 WLR 1037 where Mr. Blackburn was concerned about the
application of Her Majesty's government to join the European Common Market by
seeking to sign up to the Treaty of Rome.
He brought two actions against Her
Majesty's Government Edward Heath
through the then Attorney-General, in which he sought declarations to
the effect that, by signing the Treaty of Rome, Her Majesty's Government will
surrender in part the sovereignty of The Crown in Parliament (British people)
forever. He canvassed the view that in so doing the Government will be acting
in breach of the law. Mr. Blackburn pointed out that many regulations made by
the European Economic Community will become automatically binding on the people
of Great Britain: and that all the Courts of
Great Britain, including the House of Lords, will have to follow the
decisions of a foreign European Court in certain defined respects, including
the drafting of the Treaty itself. To buttress his point Mr. Blackburn made
reference to an earlier decision by the Court of Common Market Costa v. E. N.
E. L. ( 1964 Common Market Law Reports, 425) in February, 1964, in which the
European Court in its judgment said that:
".…the
member states, albeit within limited spheres, have restricted their sovereign
rights and created a body of law applicable both to their nationals and to
themselves".
When this
contention over the sanctity of sovereignty came before the Court of Appeal in
England, a majority of the panel of judges (Lord Denning dissenting) reasoned
and held that the power to enter into Treaties was itself a power of the Crown
acting on advice from ministers. In simple terms, it means that sovereignty can
indeed be tampered with by a government and as such cannot be held to be
sacrosanct.
THE POSITION WITH THE NIGERIA STATE:
There is no
doubt that the Nigerian Head of State (President) has the powers to enter into
treaties with foreign nations (both bilateral and multilateral) which is
binding on the whole Nigerian state. Section 12 of the Amended Gen. Abdulsalami
Abubakar 1999 Constitution has laid down the procedure for the domestication of
such treaties as a condition precedent to their activation as a law in Nigeria.
There is no question regarding the binding nature of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (providing among others for the right to self-determination) on
the Nigerian state. Equally true is the fact that not only that Nigeria is a
signatory to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Nigerian
Parliament has entrenched the said Charter as part of the corpus juris of the
country by way of domestication in compliance with the dictates of section 12
of the Constitution earlier referred to. It should be noted that Article 20 of
the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right most lucidly proclaims in clear
language that:
“All peoples
shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and
inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their
political status and shall pursue their economic and social development
according to the policy they have freely chosen.”
As we earlier
stated, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right became part of Nigerian
laws by virtue of African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification
and Enforcement Act), Cap 10, Laws of the Federation (LFN), 1990. The status of
this very important legislation came up for interpretation before the Nigerian
Supreme Court in the case of Abacha vs. Fawehinmi (2001) 51 WRN 29; (2000) 6
NWLR 228, (2002) 3 LRC 296, (2001) 1 CHR 95. In answering that crucial
question, Justice Ogundare (of blessed memory) delivering the lead judgment of
the full panel of the Nigerian Supreme Court had this to say:
“Where,
however, the treaty is enacted into law by the National Assembly, as was the
case with the African Charter which is incorporated into our municipal (i.e.
domestic) law by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification
and Enforcement) Act Cap. 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990
(hereinafter is referred to simply as Cap. 10), it becomes binding and our
Courts must give effect to it like all other laws falling within the Judicial
power of the Courts. By Cap. 10 the African Charter is now part of the laws of
Nigeria and like all other laws the Courts must uphold it.
The Charter gives to
citizens of member states of the Organisation of African Unity rights and
obligations, which rights and obligations are to be enforced by our Courts, if
they must have any meaning… No doubt Cap. 10 is a statue with international
flavour. Being so, therefore, I would think that if here is a conflict between
it and another statue, its provisions will prevail over those of that other
statue for the reason that it is presumed that the legislature does not intend
to breach an international obligation. To this extent I agree with their
Lordships of the Court below that the Charter possesses "a greater vigour
and strength" than any other domestic statue.”
It is important
to point out that the provision of Section 12 of the Nigerian Constitution
declaring null and void any treaty entered between Nigeria and any other
country/countries will not acquire the force of law in Nigeria until
domesticated, holds no water in international law, nor before International
Courts/Tribunals. What this simply means is that the Nigerian state cannot,
under any conceivable circumstance, resign from its obligation to honour any
international treaty it freely entered into by citing its anachronistic
domestic laws as a defense. In other words, Nigeria cannot point to its own
domestic laws as constituting a limitation to the fulfillment of its obligation
under any international treaty it freely entered into. Put more correctly, domestic
laws cannot be allowed to constitute a drag on the operation of foreign laws
under which a state party has undertaken to fulfill international obligations.
Indeed, this is the heart and soul of Article 7 of the 1969 Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties under International law.
The argument
put up by the Government of Nigeria to the effect that Bakassi Peninsula could
not be yielded up to Cameroun on the principal ground that section 12 of the
Nigerian Constitution would need to be complied with so as to effectively
delete Bakassi as a Local Government by way of Constitutional amendment was
roundly rejected by the International Court of Justice. (See generally Cameroon
v. Nigeria, ICJ Reports, 2002, pp. 303, 346.) Today, Bakassi Peninsula, formerly
of Cross-Rivers State of Nigeria, is no more a Nigerian territory even without
any constitutional amendment. The Nigerian Supreme Court has now accepted this
position as a correct representation of the law binding on the Nigerian state.
A practical
demonstration of this acceptance is made manifest in the case of
Attorney-General of Cross-Rivers State vs. Attorney-General of the Federation
and Anor (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt.947) pg 71 where the effect of the ICJ judgment on
the erstwhile littoral segment of Cross-River State was captured thus;
“The effect of
the judgment of the International Court of Justice dated 10/10/2002 on the land
and maritime boundary between Nigeria and Cameroun is that it has wiped off
what use to be the estuarine sector of Cross River State as a result of which
the State is hemmed in by the new international boundary between Nigeria and
Cameroun. That being the case, there seems to not be any estuarine boundary
between Akwa Ibom State and Cross River State with the result that Cross River
no longer has a seaward boundary.”
In fact, in a
later 2012 case of Attorney-General of Cross-Rivers State vs. Attorney-General
of the Federation and Anor, the Supreme Court (SC.250/2009), speaking through
Rhodes-Vivour, J.S.C., was more punchy
when it eloquently declared with a tone of finality that;
“This Court has
no jurisdiction to decide ownership of oil wells located on oil rich Bakasi
Peninsula for the simple reason that Bakasi Peninsula is foreign territory. It
is Cameroun land. Supreme Court jurisdiction is restricted to Nigeria land.”
SUMMATION:
The
jurisprudential beacon offered by the galaxy of authorities examined above
leaves us with the only conviction that Mr. Paul Arkwright’s position is out of
tune with contemporary realities which reflects poorly on his standing as a
seasoned diplomat. He must work hard to redeem his image which is being seen by
many concerned Africans as one steeped in gross incompetence devoid of any
intellectual depth. A good starting point will be for him to acknowledge that
this Nigerian state as presently constituted, created by his fellow countryman
Frederick Luggard, has voluntarily, by domesticating Article 20 of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right, accepted to give fillip to any section of
the country wishing to secede by facilitating the exercise of that undeniable
right through referendum as was recently done in the United Kingdom, where Mr.
Arkwright comes from and is representing, regarding Scotland.
The second duty
on the part of Mr. Paul Arkwright is for him to wake up to his real duties by
impressing upon the Nigerian Government the imperative of discharging its
obligation (under UN Declaration and African Charter) of facilitating a
referendum for a peaceful Biafra exit from Nigeria.
It is our hope
that Mr. Paul Arkwright appreciates this new reality, otherwise we would be
forced to draw the alternative inference that he set out ab initio to cause
mischief and test the will and resolve of IPOB. This would be most unfortunate
if it were to be so since the pervasive consequences of such an action will not
spare anyone trying to subvert the will of the Biafran people. For record
purposes, the Conservative Party led British Government of Theresa May has
nothing to fear from the emergence of Biafra, after all we Biafrans are the
most Anglophile of all races in Africa. Should Mr. Arkwright continue to pursue
his flawed and misguided adventure of insisting on the indivisibility of their
'One Nigeria', it would be fatal and suicidal because we would never ever stop
until Biafra is liberated. We wish to stop here.
SIGNED:
Dr. Ikenna
Chinaka
Mrs Grace Ukpai
IPOB
Spokespersons
No comments:
Post a Comment