Nigerian Concord Newspaper
Former Minister for Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Mike Kaase Aondoakaa, SAN has insisted that the late President Yar’Adua’s Bakassi peninsula decision safeguarded Nigeria’s security and should not be faulted.
The former AGF who defended the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua over lingering controversies surrounding Nigeria’s handling of the Bakassi Peninsula during an interview with ARISE NEWS this morning insisted that his administration acted in the best interest of the country.
Aondoakaa said he had “sleepless nights” when the Bakassi handover took place and felt compelled to clarify misrepresentations. He emphasised that neither President Obasanjo, who implemented the Green Tree Agreement, nor President Yar’Adua, who presided over the 2008 handover, endangered Nigeria’s security.
“I don’t want the name of late President Yar’Adua to be tainted that he took a decision that affected the security of our country. We did not. We did not from our data,” he declared.
The Bakassi Peninsula dispute stemmed from a 2002 International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that ceded the oil-rich territory from Nigeria to Cameroon. In line with the 2006 Green Tree Agreement, Nigeria formally handed over Bakassi to Cameroon in August 2008 under President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, following initial steps taken by former President Olusegun Obasanjo. The decision sparked controversy at home, with critics arguing it stripped Cross River State of its coastal status and vital oil resources, while supporters maintained it upheld international law and preserved Nigeria’s diplomatic credibility.
Aondoakaa argued that the data available at the time showed Cross River State was not stripped of its littoral status. He pointed out that the Eastern Naval Command headquarters in Calabar — established in 1971 — remained operational, proving that Nigeria’s coastal security was not compromised.
He further explained that the Navy and the Surveyor General’s office worked with the government to ensure the demarcation line did not harm Nigeria’s security interests, stressing that the Supreme Court later acted on evidence different from what his administration had.
“This is not to say that I’m challenging the wisdom of the Supreme Court justices. It was the evidence presented to them. There might have been an error in the data presented to them. It’s possible. The Supreme Court acts on evidence. And it is the evidence presented to them. It is the evidence given to us that we felt Nigeria was adequately protected. And Cross River was not hewed out. Our concern then was the Eastern Naval Command headquarters, that it should not be hewed out,” he said.
On the contentious issue of oil wells, Aondoakaa said the 72 oil wells in question represented less than three percent compared to over 2,000 wells in Akwa Ibom.
“If you look at 72 oil wells in relation to 2,000 oil wells in Akwa Ibom, it is less than 3%. So, our goal was not about the oil. In our demarcation, we ensured that everything was well-protected and well-balanced,” he said.
Aondoakaa maintained that if errors exist, they stem from later political decisions or evidence presented after he left office in 2010, not from actions taken under Yar’Adua’s government.