NIGERIA: BAKASSI INHABITANTS SUE FEDERAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L ABUJA 000778

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DOE FOR GEORGE PERSON

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/10/2018
TAGS: PREL PGOV CM NI
SUBJECT: NIGERIA: BAKASSI INHABITANTS SUE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT

REF: A. 07 ABUJA 2513

B. 07 ABUJA 2437

Classified By: Political Counselor Walter Pflaumer for reasons 1.4. (b
& d).


1. (U) On Friday, April 25, the Federal High Court in Abuja
will rule on a class action suit brought against the GON by
eight Bakassi Peninsula inhabitants seeking $3.8 billion (456
billion naira) in compensation for compulsory ceding of their
land and infringement of their human rights. According to
press reports, the plaintiffs also seek a court injunction to
stop the GON from ceding the remaining two areas of Bakassi
that are scheduled to transfer to Cameroon August 11, 2008,
restrain the GON from relocating the Bakassi administrative
headquarters, and stop the GON from remitting funds due to
Bakassi Local Government Area to Cross River State (which is
where "New Bakassi" is located). The plaintiffs, who include
former chairmen of the Bakassi Local Government Chief
Emmanuel Etene and Ani Esin, filed the suit against President
Yar'Adua, the National Assembly, the Attorney-General, the
Governor of Cross Rivers State, and the Cross Rivers State
House of Assembly.


2. (U) Currently the Bakassi Peninsula inhabitants have three
citizenship/legal resident options laid out in the Greentree
Agreement (which establishes the modalities for handing the
territory over to Cameroon): become Cameroonian citizens,
remain Nigerian citizens but legal residents of Cameroon, or
relocate to "New Bakassi" in Ikang, Cross River State. Many
Bakassi inhabitants feel there is no choice at all and
contend Ikang is not a suitable area in which to live due to
its lack of infrastructure, particularly roads. The
complainants further argue the area is landlocked, denying
them their livelihoods as fishermen. Most seriously, they
allege that the proposed resettlement area of Ikang will not
be safe because of ethnic tensions with the people already
living in the area. They also express fear about becoming a
minority in a predominantly Francophone country. Bakassi
residents assert that the Cameroon government will exploit
them with undue taxes, and otherwise treat them unjustly
(Comment: actions explicitly ruled out in the Greentree
Agreement. End comment).


3. (C) House of Representatives Member from Cross River State
John Owan-Enoh (protect) conceded that neither the federal
government nor the Cross Rivers State government have done
enough to assist the Bakassians'resettlement. He attributed
Cross Rivers' inability to develop a habitable area to a lack
of promised funding from the federal government. However,
Owan-Enoh challenged the Bakassians' fears of ethnic conflict
upon resettlement, arguing that the plaintiffs are using this
as an excuse because they are angry at losing their ancestral
land (and titles associated with it). Although he would not
speculate on the outcome of the compensatory aspect of the
suit, he was confident that the courts would not attempt to
stop the ceding of the territory to Cameroon. He further
dismissed any suggestion that the GON might try to back out
of the Greentree Agreement, noting that Nigeria is bound by
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling, and that the
National Assembly and judiciary would not challenge this.


4. (C) COMMENT: Owan-Enoh was honest about the lack of
assistance to the Bakassi people; however, it is difficult to
believe that resettling a large population onto an area that
already lacks infrastructure, clean water and resources will
not lead to tensions with those already there. Owan-Enoh is,
however, almost certainly right that the court will not, in
the end, contradict the Greentree Agreement by granting the
requested injunctions, though it may agree to hear the case
and perhaps reopen the question of increasing compensation
for the Bakassians. END COMMENT.
SANDERS