Law | News

Reps put plans to cede part of Adamawa to Cameroon on hold

2 min read

House of representatives

The House of Representatives ad hoc committee on International Boundary Dispute has halted plans to cede Sina in Michika local government area of Adamawa State to the Republic of Cameroon.

The Chairman of the Committee, Beni Lar, gave the ruling in Abuja on Tuesday at an investigative hearing on the the Nigeria-Cameroon boundary disputes.

Mrs Lar said the demarcation of the boundary must be put on hold until the disputes were resolved, adding that the committee would visit Adamawa to get a comprehensive report.

“We will recall that we did the first phase of this, similar to the DANARE-BIAJUA Axis of Cross River State and as a fallout of that, the Speaker through a request by Rep. Dauda Nyampa included Sina area to the committee’s terms of reference,” she said.

She said the committee would visit Adamawa on a fact-finding mission, adding that the committee had already notified the governor of the visit.

She said the committee discovered that there was lack of security posts and barracks on the nation’s land borders, whereas such were visible on the Cameroon side of the borders.

This, according to her, necesitated the interactive session with the security formations which was to assess the role of security agencies in safeguarding the territorial integrity of the country.

Speaking, Adamu Adaji, the Director General, National Boundary Commission, said the demarcation was being carried out in line with the ruling of the International Court of Justice , ICJ.

He said so far the sub-commission on demarcation had emplaced a total of 2, 214 pillars on the boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon.

“The Adamawa state sector of the boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon as decided by the International Court of Justice is based on treaties and agreements that had been entered into by colonial masters.

“The courts upheld these treaties and agreements and ruled that they be used to re-establish the boundary. It is not a new boundary.

”It is a boundary that has been existing and there are documents that show the fact that these boundaries have been existing.

“What the court ruled was that go and use this document to re-establish the boundary as it has always been recognized, ” he said.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.