Introduction
Nigeria and Cameroon share a long and complex border stretching over 1,900 kilometres, touching both the Gulf of Guinea in the south and the Lake Chad region in the north. For decades, this frontier has been a source of contention, with disputes rooted in colonial boundary demarcations, resource competition, and ethnic ties that transcend political lines. Among these, the most prominent and internationally significant conflict was the dispute over the Bakassi Peninsula, a small but resource-rich stretch of land in the Gulf of Guinea.
Placed under the broader context of Democratic Nigeria—the era following the end of military rule in 1999—the Nigeria–Cameroon border question stands out as a major test of diplomacy, international law, and the balancing of national pride with regional stability.
Colonial Origins of the Nigerian – Cameron Dispute
The origins of the Nigerian–Cameroonian border disputes date back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when European colonial powers carved up Africa without regard to indigenous cultural and economic ties.
The Anglo–German Agreements: In 1913, Britain and Germany signed treaties that defined the border between their respective colonies—British Nigeria and German Kamerun. One agreement, in particular, placed the Bakassi Peninsula under German control.
World War I and Mandate Territories: Following Germany’s defeat in World War I, Kamerun was divided between Britain and France under League of Nations mandates. Britain administered the Northern and Southern Cameroons as part of Nigeria, while France took the rest of Cameroon.
The seeds of the future dispute were sown in this colonial period—ambiguous maps, imprecise surveying, and political compromises led to overlapping claims that neither Nigeria nor Cameroon fully accepted after independence.
Independence and Early Tensions
Nigeria gained independence in 1960, and French Cameroon followed in the same year. The British-administered Northern Cameroons voted in a plebiscite in 1961 to join Nigeria, while the Southern Cameroons chose to unite with the Republic of Cameroon.
From the 1960s onwards, both Nigeria and Cameroon claimed sovereignty over certain border areas, particularly Bakassi. Tensions were heightened by:
Rich Natural Resources: Offshore oil reserves in the Gulf of Guinea and fertile fishing waters in Bakassi became major economic incentives for both countries.
Local Populations: The majority of Bakassi’s inhabitants were Nigerian fishermen and farmers, many of whom had ancestral and economic ties to Cross River State.
Security Concerns: The porous border also became a zone of smuggling and occasional clashes between security forces.
While the early decades saw occasional skirmishes, neither side pursued full-scale military action—until the 1990s.
The 1990s Military Clashes
The dispute escalated sharply in the early 1990s. In 1994, Nigerian forces occupied parts of the Bakassi Peninsula, arguing that it was historically part of Nigeria’s territory. Cameroon responded by taking the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.
Key Figures in the Crisis
General Sani Abacha – Nigeria’s military ruler at the time, who adopted a hardline stance and resisted external pressure to withdraw.
President Paul Biya – Cameroon’s long-serving leader, who turned to legal and diplomatic avenues to assert Cameroon’s claim.
During this period, border skirmishes resulted in casualties on both sides. International mediators, including the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and the United Nations (UN), urged restraint, but tensions remained high.
The ICJ Case (1994–2002)
The ICJ case became one of the most significant African territorial disputes ever settled by international law.
Cameroon’s Argument: Relied heavily on the 1913 Anglo–German Agreement, asserting that it clearly placed Bakassi under German (later Cameroonian) sovereignty.
Nigeria’s Argument: Emphasised historical ties of the Bakassi people to Nigeria, administrative control since independence, and the principle of self-determination.
The 2002 ICJ Judgment
On 10 October 2002, the ICJ ruled in favour of Cameroon, awarding it sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula and reaffirming the colonial-era boundary. The decision required:
- Nigeria to withdraw its military and administrative presence from Bakassi.
- Both countries to respect the border as demarcated by earlier agreements.
While Cameroon welcomed the verdict, the ruling was met with strong opposition in Nigeria—especially among Bakassi residents and political leaders in Cross River State, who argued that their voices had been ignored.
The Green Tree Agreement and Peaceful Transfer
Under the democratic government of President Olusegun Obasanjo, Nigeria chose to comply with the ICJ ruling to avoid further conflict and preserve its international reputation. This decision led to the Green Tree Agreement, signed on 12 June 2006 in New York, under the auspices of the United Nations and witnessed by then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Provisions of the Agreement
Nigeria would begin a phased withdrawal from Bakassi within 60 days.
Cameroon would guarantee the protection of Bakassi residents’ rights, property, and livelihoods.
The UN and other international observers would monitor the implementation process.
By August 2008, Nigeria completed the handover of Bakassi to Cameroon, though thousands of residents refused to move and some continued to regard themselves as Nigerians.
Human and Political Impact
The handover of Bakassi triggered significant human and political consequences:
Displacement: Many Nigerian residents relocated to Cross River and Akwa Ibom States, facing challenges in resettlement, land allocation, and access to resources.
Identity and Citizenship: Questions arose over the citizenship status of those who chose to remain in Bakassi under Cameroonian rule.
Local Protests: Some Bakassi groups accused the Nigerian government of “abandoning” them without adequate compensation or political consultation.
Border Demarcation Beyond Bakassi
The Bakassi case overshadowed, but did not resolve, other border disputes between Nigeria and Cameroon—especially in the Lake Chad area. This region, home to the Kanuri and other ethnic groups, has faced overlapping claims, environmental pressures from the shrinking lake, and more recently, security threats from Boko Haram insurgents exploiting the porous border.
Joint commissions, often with UN support, have been working to physically demarcate the entire Nigeria–Cameroon border in line with the ICJ ruling. Progress has been slow due to terrain difficulties, security issues, and occasional disagreements over interpretation of maps.
Why It Matters Today
The Nigeria–Cameroon border disputes remain relevant for several reasons:
- Regional Stability: The peaceful resolution of Bakassi is often cited as a model for conflict settlement in Africa, showing that international law can be respected without resorting to prolonged war.
- Security Cooperation: Both countries now coordinate military operations against cross-border insurgencies, particularly Boko Haram in the Lake Chad Basin.
- Economic and Maritime Interests: Offshore oil exploration and fishing rights in the Gulf of Guinea continue to make the maritime boundary economically significant.
- Human Rights and Integration: The long-term integration of Bakassi residents into Cameroon, and the welfare of displaced Nigerians, remain sensitive political issues.
Conclusion
The Nigerian–Cameroonian border disputes, shaped by colonial history and fuelled by natural resources, tested the resilience of both nations in the democratic era. While the ICJ ruling and Green Tree Agreement brought an official end to the Bakassi Peninsula dispute, the human consequences and the need for continued cooperation persist.
For Nigeria, the episode stands as both a diplomatic achievement—avoiding war through legal channels—and a reminder of the deep human dimension in territorial politics. For Cameroon, it solidified control over a strategic region but also brought responsibilities toward a population with cross-border loyalties.
In the broader story of Democratic Nigeria, the peaceful settlement of the dispute reflects the country’s willingness to uphold international norms, even at domestic political cost—an enduring example of diplomacy in action on the African continent.
