Nigeria and Cameroon share a frontier that stretches from Lake Chad in the north to the Gulf of Guinea in the south. The boundary is commonly cited at about 1,975 kilometres (roughly 1,227 miles). This frontier, shaped by colonial-era treaties and river alignments, cuts across ethnic and economic regions, and for decades it has generated disputes rooted in colonial legacies, natural resources, and the lived reality of cross-border ties.
The most prominent of these disputes was over the Bakassi Peninsula, a territory rich in fisheries and offshore oil, which tested the resilience of diplomacy, international law, and local communities in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.
Colonial Origins of the Dispute.
The roots of the Bakassi conflict lie in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when European powers partitioned Africa with little regard for indigenous societies.
The Anglo–German Treaty of 1913 defined much of the boundary between British Nigeria and German Kamerun, placing the Bakassi Peninsula under German control. After Germany’s defeat in the First World War, the Treaty of Versailles stripped Germany of its colonies. In 1922, the League of Nations divided Kamerun between France and Britain. France administered the larger share, while Britain governed Northern and Southern Cameroons, attaching them administratively to Nigeria.
These arrangements created ambiguous borders that would later become politically contentious once independence movements swept across Africa.
Independence and Plebiscites.
The modern states of Nigeria and Cameroon emerged from different colonial backgrounds. The Republic of Cameroon, the former French mandate, became independent on 1 January 1960. Nigeria followed on 1 October 1960.
The future of the British Cameroons was determined by a United Nations–organised plebiscite in 1961:
- Northern Cameroons voted to join Nigeria.
- Southern Cameroons voted to unite with Cameroon.
These alignments reshaped the frontier, leaving ethnic communities and economic resources divided. In Bakassi, the majority of inhabitants identified as Nigerian, particularly from Cross River and Akwa Ibom groups, complicating questions of sovereignty and loyalty.
Escalation in the 1990s.
Although skirmishes occurred earlier, tensions escalated sharply in the early 1990s. Nigerian troops expanded their presence in Bakassi, citing cultural ties and the welfare of residents. On 29 March 1994, Cameroon submitted a case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), requesting a determination of sovereignty over Bakassi and other disputed areas.
The period saw intense confrontations:
- General Sani Abacha of Nigeria defended Nigeria’s military presence as a matter of national interest.
- President Paul Biya of Cameroon pursued diplomacy and legal action through the ICJ.
Armed clashes led to casualties, while international bodies including the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and the United Nations called repeatedly for restraint.
The ICJ Case (1994–2002).
The ICJ proceedings became a landmark in African territorial disputes.
- Cameroon’s case: Relied on the Anglo–German Treaty of 1913, arguing that Bakassi legally fell under Cameroonian sovereignty.
- Nigeria’s case: Emphasised the cultural and historical identity of Bakassi’s people with Nigeria, the principle of self-determination, and administrative practices since independence.
On 10 October 2002, the ICJ ruled in favour of Cameroon, upholding colonial-era boundaries and ordering Nigeria to withdraw its military and administrative institutions from Bakassi.
The ruling caused widespread dissatisfaction in Nigeria, particularly among Cross River and Bakassi leaders who argued that the voices of local communities had been ignored.
The Greentree Agreement and Peaceful Transfer.
To implement the ruling, both countries signed the Greentree Agreement in New York on 12 June 2006, under the facilitation of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
The agreement outlined:
- Nigeria’s obligation to withdraw armed forces from Bakassi within 60 days, extendable by 30 days.
- A provision allowing Nigeria to maintain civil administration and police in the area for two years to ease the transition.
- Cameroon’s commitment to safeguard the rights and welfare of Nigerian residents.
- UN monitoring to ensure compliance.
Nigeria began its phased withdrawal in 2006, and on 14 August 2008, in a formal ceremony under UN supervision, Nigeria completed the transfer of authority to Cameroon. The handover was hailed internationally as a triumph for international law, though local realities were more complex.
Human and Political Consequences.
The resolution produced deep human and political consequences:
- Displacement: Many Nigerian residents relocated to Cross River and Akwa Ibom States, often facing inadequate housing, poor compensation, and loss of livelihoods.
- Identity questions: Those who remained in Bakassi under Cameroonian rule struggled with citizenship rights, caught between Nigerian heritage and Cameroonian sovereignty.
- Political tensions: Communities accused the Nigerian government of neglect, arguing they had not been properly consulted in the process.
Beyond Bakassi: Lake Chad and Security.
Although Bakassi captured international headlines, the Nigeria–Cameroon frontier continues to present challenges. The shrinking of Lake Chad has worsened environmental stress, displaced populations, and provided new grounds for disputes. Additionally, Boko Haram and other insurgent groups exploit porous borders for cross-border attacks, creating urgent security concerns.
Joint boundary commissions, supported by the United Nations, continue efforts at physical demarcation of the Nigeria–Cameroon boundary, though difficult terrain, insecurity, and contested map interpretations slow progress.
Contemporary Relevance.
The Bakassi episode remains important for several reasons:
- Regional stability: It is frequently cited as a model for peacefully resolving African territorial disputes through international adjudication.
- Security cooperation: Nigeria and Cameroon now collaborate more closely in counter-insurgency operations against Boko Haram.
- Economic stakes: Offshore oil and Gulf of Guinea fisheries remain central to bilateral relations.
- Human rights: Long-term protection and integration of displaced Bakassi residents remain unresolved issues.
Author’s Note.
The Nigeria–Cameroon border conflict, rooted in colonial treaties and sharpened by strategic interests, tested both countries’ willingness to submit to international law. The ICJ ruling and the Greentree Agreement provided a peaceful framework for resolution, but displacement, identity struggles, and insecurity still cast long shadows.
For Nigeria, the process underscored both the costs of honouring international obligations and the diplomatic credibility gained by compliance. For Cameroon, sovereignty was legally affirmed, but it came with the responsibility of managing communities long tied to Nigeria.
The Bakassi dispute illustrates how even Africa’s most contentious territorial disagreements can be addressed through diplomacy, law, and mediation. Yet, it also demonstrates that peace on paper does not automatically resolve the lived realities of affected communities.
References:
International Court of Justice. Case Concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002.
United Nations. Agreement between the Republic of Cameroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Greentree Agreement), 12 June 2006.
Reuters. “Nigeria hands over oil-rich Bakassi to Cameroon,” 14 August 2008.
READ MORE: Ancient & Pre-Colonial Nigeria
EXPLORE NOW: Democratic Nigeria
