Counter-Memorial submitted by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
/themes/custom/icj/images/favicon.ico
54 NORTHERN CAMEROONS

2. COUNTER-MEMORIAS LUBMITTEDBY THE GOVERNMENT

OFTHE UNITED KINGDOMOFGREAT BRITAINAND

NORTHERN IRELAND

Introduction

I.This Counter-Memorial is submitted to the Court in pursuance

of an Order of the Court dated 6 July 1961, the time specified in

that Order for its delivery having been extended by further Orders

made by the Court on z November 1961,25 Aprilxg62 and IOJuly

1962.

2. In its application to the Court, deposited on 30 May 1961,

and in its Memorial, the complaints made by the Government

of the Republic of Cameroon fail under two heads, namely com-

plaints as tothe discharge by the United Kingdom of its obligations

under the Trusteeship Agreement tothe inhabitants of the Northern

Cameroons and, secondly, as to the conduct of the second plebiscite

in the Northern Cameroons.

3. The Trusteeship Agreement referred to is the Trusteeship

Agreement for the Cameroons under United Kingdom Trusteeship

as approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on

13 December 1946, and published in United Nations TreatySeries,

Volume 8,page 119,under Registration No. 119.(Fortheconvenience

of the Court, a copy of the Agreement is annexed to thiscounter-

Memorial as Annex 1.)

4. The first part of the Memorial of the Republic of Cameroon is

entitled "Legal Character of the Dispute" and it will, it is thought,

be convenient if, in Part 1, at the beginning of this Counter-

Memorial, the Government of the United Kingdom state their

submissions as to the jurisdiction of theurt.

5. Follouing the order of the Memorial, the allegations of the

Republic of Cameroon conceming the United Kingdom adminis-

tration ofthe Trust Temtory are answeredin Part II ofthis Counter-

Memorialand those relating to the course of the plebiscite operations

in Part III. The United Kingdom conclusions are stated in Part IV.

6. For the convenience of the Court, there are attached as

Annexes to this Counter-Memorial an account of the geographic,

ethnic and historical background of the Trust Territory (Annex II)

and a summary of the relevant features of British administration

under the international trusteeship system (Annex III). Also

attached are a copy ofthe Mandate (Annex IV), a number of General

Assembly and Trusteeship Council Resolutions (Annex V), a politi-

cal map of the territory of the Cameroons under British Adminis- COUNTER-MEAIORIAL OF THE UNITED KINGDObl

55

tration (Annex VI) and a physical map of the same territory

(Annex VII).

7. Part 1 of this Counter-Memorial raises, as a preliminary

objection under Article 62 of the Kules of Court, the contention

that the Court has no jurisdiction in this case. Nevertheless, the

British Government consider that it is undesirable that the serious

allegations made by the Repuhlic of Cameroon should remain on

the record unanswered and, for this renson, they have included

their answers on the merits inthe Counter-Memorial. These answers

are submitted to the Court without prejudice ta the preliminary

objection. NORTHERKCAUEROOKS

PART I

The Jurisdictionof the Court

A. PROVISIOKS OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT, THE CHARTER

AKD THE TRUSTEESHIA PGREEMEST

8. Article 36 (1) of the Statute of the International Court of

Justice states that "The jurisdiction of the Court comprises al1

cases which the parties refer to it and al1matters specialiy provided

for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and con-

ventions in force". The complaints of the Republic of Cameroon

do not come ~vithin the first two parts of the Article, and conse-

quently if the Court has jurisdiction to hear these complaints, that

jurisdiction can only arise if jurisdiction as to the matters of

complaint is specially provided for in a treaty or convention in

force.

9. The Government of the United Kingdom do not wish to

dispute that the Tmsteeship Agreement was a treaty or convention

within the meaning of this Article. It ceased to be in force onIJune

1961in relation to the Northern Cameroons', the application to the

Court having been made on 30 May 1961. The Governrnent of

the United Kingdom submit that the Trusteeship Agreement does

not, when properly construed, provide for the jurisdiction of the

Court in relation to the matters, the subject of complaint by the

Republic of Cameroon.

IO. Article75 of the Charter of the United Xations provides that,

"The United Xations shall establish under its authority an inter-

national tmsteeship system for the administration and supenrision

of such temtories as may be placed thereunder by subsequent

individual agreements". It foiiolvs that responsibility for the

administration and supervision of tmst territories rests with the

international trusteeship system created by the United Nations,

and ultimately with the United Nations.

II. Article 76 of the Charter states the basic objectives of the

trusteeship system and Article 77 provides for the placing under

the trusteeship system of territories "now held under mandate".

The United Kingdom held a mandate under Article 22 of the Cove-

nant of the League of Nations to administer the temtory of the

Cameroons which was subsequently placed under United Kingdom

trusteeship.

' Resolutio1608 (XV) adopted by the GeneralAssernbly on21 April1961

(Annex V (40))By the samresolutiotheAgreemen tusterrninatewithrespect

tothe Southern Carneroons inOctokr ,961. COUNTER-IlEhlORIAL OF THE UNITED KlSGDOhI 57

12. Article 79 of the Charter provides that, "The terms of tms-

teeship ...shall be agreed upon by the States directly concerned,

including the mandatory power in the case of territories held under

mandate by a Member of the United Nations, and shall be approved

as provided for in Articles 83 and 8j". The Republic of Cameroon

came into existence on I January 1960. It was not, therefore, a

State whose agreement to the terms of tmsteeship of 13 December

1946 \vas required by Article 79; nor was it a party to the Tmstee-

ship Agreement when that Agreement was made. The position of the

Republic of Cameroon in relation to the Trusteeship Agreement is

examined further in paragraphs 2 j to 29 below.

13. Article 85 of the Charter provides that, "The functions of

the United Nations witli regard to tiusteesliip agreements for al1

areas not designated as strategic', including the approval of the

terms of the tmsteeship agreements ... shall be exercised by the

General Assembly". and that "The Tmsteeship Council, operating

under the authonty of the General Assembly, shall assist the General

Assembly in carrying out these functions".

14. Pursuant to these Articles of the Charter, the United King-

dom, as the Alandatory Power, sought to place the Cameroons

under the international trusteeship system and, on 13 December

1946, the General Assembly approved the terms of trusteeship for

the Serritory.

15. From 13 December 1946 until I June 1961, when the Trus-

teeship Agreement was terminated in relation to the Northern

Cameroons (resolution 1608(SV), adopted by the General Assembly

on 21 April 1961 (Annex V (40)), the General Assembly had the

responsibility of securing that that territory was administered by

the United Kingdom as the administenng authority in accordance

with the terms of the Trusteeship Agreement and with the basic

objectives of the tmsteeship system as declared by Article 76 of

the Charter.

16. By Article 3 of the Trusteeship Agreement, the United

Kingdom undertook to administer the territory in such a manner

as to achieve the basic objectives of the international trusteeship

system and to coliaborate fully \\+th the General Assembly and the

Trusteeship Council in discharging aU their functions as defined

in Article 87.

17. By Article j of the Agreement, it was provided that, ipiter

alia, the United Kingdom-

(a) should have full powers of legislation, administration and

jurisdiction in the Terntory and should administer it in accord-

ance with its own laws as an integral part of its territory ~4th

' The area inquestionwas not deçignatedasstrategic, soArticle 83 does not

apply.9 SORTHERN CAMEROOSS

such modifications as might be required by local conditions

and subject to the provisions of the United Nations Charter

and of the Trusteeship Agreement; and

(b) should be entitled to constitute the Territory into a customs,

fiscal or administrative union or federation with adjacent

territories under its sovereignty or control, and to establish

common services between such territories and the Territory

where such measures are not inconsistent with the basic ob-

jectives of the international trusteeship system and with the

terms of the Trusteeship Agreement.

18. By Article 6 of the Agreement, it was provided that the

United Kingdom should promote the development of free political

institutions suited to the Territory and to this end should assure

to the inhabitants of the Territory a progressively increasing

share in the administrative and other services of the Temtory;

shodd develop the participation of the inhabitants of the Territory

in advisory and legislative bodies and in the government of the

Territory, both central and local, as might be appropriate to the

particular circumstances of the Territory and its people; and should

take al1 other appropriate measures with a view to the political

advancement of the inhabitants of the Territory in accordance

~4th Article 76 (b) of the Charter, and that in considering the

measures to be taken under this Article the United Kingdom should,

in the interests of the inhabitants, have special regard to the

provisions of Article5 (a) of the Agreement.

19. By Article 9 of the Agreement, the United Kingdom under-

took certain obligations to al1 Members of the United Nations

and their nationals, namely to take al1 necessary steps to ensure

equal treatment in social, economic, industrial and commercial

matters and to this end:

(a) to ensure the same rights to al1 nationals of hlembers of the

United Nations as to British nationals in respect of various

matters,

(b) not to discriminate on grounds of nationality against nationals

of any Member of the United Nations in relation to certain

matters, and

(c) to ensnre equal treatment in the administration of justice to

the nationals of al1Members of the United Nations.

zo. ArticleIOof the Agreement provided, interalia, that measures

taken to give effect to Articlg of the Agreement should be subject

always to the ovemding duty of the United Kingdom in accordance

with Article 76 of the Charter to promote the political, economic,

social and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the terri-

tory to carry out the other basic objectives of the international

tmsteeship system and to maintain peace, order and good govern-

ment. COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

59

21. By Article 13 of the Agreement, the United Kingdom

further undertook certain obligations in respect of missionanes

who were nationals of the Members of the United Xations..

22. Article 19 of the Agreement provided that-

"If any dispute whatever should arise between the Administering

Authority and another Rlemberof the United Nations relating to

the interpretation or applicationf the provisions of this Agree-

ment, such dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation or other

means, shall be submitted to the International Court of Jus..."

B. THE EFFECT OF ARTICLE19 OF THE TRUSTEESHIP AGREEMENT

23. In the submission of the United Kingdom, this Article was

not intended to give toany Member of the United Nations the right

to indict before the International Court the United Kingdom as

administering authority of the Territory for failure to discharge

its obligations in relation to the inhabitants of the Territoryder

the Trusteeship Agreement made with the United Nations. Under

the Charter, it was the function of the General Assembly acting

through the Trusteeship Council to exercise the authority of the

United Nations in respect of the administration of the Territory

brought ulthin the international trusteeship system by the Trus-

teeship Agreement. In the submission of the United Kingdom,

Article 19 of the Trusteeship Agreement does not and was not

intended to give any Member of the United Nations the right,

except as regards obligations specifically undertaken in relation

to Member Statesand their nationals in the Agreement (seepara. 31

below), to question before the International Conrt the adminis-

tration of the territory, administration for which the United

Kingdom was directly answerable to the Trusteeship Counciland

to the General Assembly.

24. Further, the United Kingdom will in this C~unter~Memorial

show that the complaints made by the Republic of Cameroon

in their Application to this Court and in their Memonal have been

considered and rejected by the General Assembly.

25. If contrary to the contention of the United Kingdom the

view is held that, under Article 19 of the Trusteeship Agreement,

a Member of the United Nations can bnng before the International

Court complaints as to the conduct of the United Kingdom as

administering authority for which the United Kingdom is answer-

able to the General Assembly, the United Kingdom further submits

that the Republic of Cameroon, which only became a member of

the United Nations on 20 September 1960, is not a Member of the

United Nations entitled to do so.

26. The jurisdiction of the Conrtunder -4rticle 19 of the Trustee-

ship Agreement exists only in the event of a "dispute" arising

between the United Kingdom and another Member of the United60 NORTHERK CAMEROONS

Nations "relating to the interpretation or application of the pro-

visions" of the Agreement, and only if such dispute cannot be

settled by negotiation or other means. The Republic of Cameroon

in paragraph 3 of its Memorial States that "the first three com-

plaints" enunciated in its Application "are based upon the breach

of the Trusteeship Agreement" and that "the remainder put in

issue the Trusteeship Agreement and resolution 1473 (XIV) of

the General Assembly dated 12 December 1959" (Annex V (38)).

In paragraph 4 of the Memorial, the Republic seeks to rely upon

protests made in the Tmsteeship Council and elsewhere and upon

its Note of I May 1961 to the United Kingdom. The fact that this

Note referred to "complaints of a legal character" and enumerated

"points of law" as constituting the subject of the Republic's

"dispute" with the United Kingdom cannot, by itself, cause a dis-

pute to arise. Xor could the additional fact that the Xote of I May

1961 was answered by a Xote from the United Kingdom of 26 May

1961 give nse to a dispute relating to the interpretation or appli-

cation of the provisions of the Trusteeship Agreement. Nor did

the making of complaints alleged to be based on breach of that

Agreement constitute such a dispute. Even if there ivere dis-

agreement between the United Kingdom and a Memberof the United

Nations relating to the conduct of the tmsteeship and the dis-

agreement were a "dispute", Article 19 of the Srusteeship Agree-

ment would not entitle a Member of the United Nations to invoke

the jnrisdiction of the Court in order to "put in issue the Trusteeship

Agreement and resolution 1473 (XIV) of the General Assembly".

27. The Republic of Cameroon has not any right either on its

own account or on behalf of the inhabitants of the Northern

Cameroons to put in issue the Trusteeship Agreement and the reso-

lution of the General Assembly nor did the Republic acquire any

such right as a result of the Southern Cameroons joining the Re-

public on I October 1961.

28. The Republic of Cameroon seeks to attach importance to the

fact that the word "whatever" follows the words "any dispute"

in Article 19. They say that the jurisdiction of the Court is very

\vide. But wide though it may be;it depends upon the existence

of a dispute relating to the interpretation or application of the

provisions of the Agreement. In the submission of the United

Kingdom, there is not and has not been a dispute between the

United Kingdom and the Republic of Cameroon of the character

required in order to give the Court jurisdiction. The Republic in

paragraph I of its Memorial seeks to rely upon Article 36 (2) (a)

and (c) of the Statute of the Court. In the absence of a declaration

by the Republic of Cameroon accepting the jurisdiction of the Court

as compnlsory ipso facto and without special agreement, as required

by Article 36 (z), the references to Article 36 (2)(a) and (c) are COUNTER-ME31ORIAI. OF THE UNITED KINGD03.1 61

irrelevant and throw no light upon the construction to be placed

on Article 19 of the Agreement.

29. The Trusteeship Agreement was made between the United

Kingdom on the one hand and the United Nations on the other

hand '.The Republic of Cameroon was never a party to the Trus-

teeship Agreement and only enjoyed the benefits of membership

of the United Nations from zo September 1960.

30. If it be the case that the Republic of Cameroon on and after

20 September 1960 was entitletl to rely on Article 19 of the Agree-

ment, it is not in the submission of the United Kingdom entitled

to rely upon matters occurring during the currency of the Agree-

ment pnor to zo September 1960 to establis11a dispute before that

date with the United Kingdom for the purpose of giving the Court

jurisdiction. Nor, in the submission of the United Kingdom, in

the event of a dispute sufficient to comply with the requirement of

Article 19 arising after 20 September 1960, is the Republic of

Cameroon entitled to ask the Court to pronounce upon matters

which occurred before that date. By becoming a filember of the

United Nations, the Republic of Cameroon cannot avail itself of

Article 19 so as to give the Court jurisdiction to adjudicatc on

matters in relation to which it would have had no jurisdiction if the

application had been made before zo September 1960.

31. Further, in the submission of the United Kingdom, the object

of Article 19 of the Agreement was not to give any Member of the

United Xations the right to bring the United Kingdom before

the Court on account of the way in which it discharged its obliga-

tions in respect of the inhabitants of the territory under the

Agreement made with the United Nations for which the United

Kingdom was answerable to the General Assembly but to provide

a method for adjudication of disputes relating to the obliga-

tions specifically undertaken in relation to Member States and

their nationals in the Agrecment. The United Kingdom rccog-

nizes the width of the language of Article 19 but will contend

that from a consideration of the Charter and the Agreement it is

clear that Article 19was not intended to provide machinery whereby

a Member State coiild ask the Court to adjudicate upon the dis-

charge by the United Kingdom of its obligations in respect of the

' The Trustecship Agreement was registereex oflcihy the Secretariat ofthe

United Xations ani October 1947 under Registration Numbcr 118 (United Nations

Trcnty Series. VoR,p. 119).Article 4 of the Kegulatians adopted hy the General

Assembly to give cffect to Artic~oïof the Charter (resolution 97 (1)of Do-

cemher rg46) provides that registratiexoflcisohvll take place in the following

cases:

(a) Where the United Nations is a party to the treaty or agreement

(b) \\lierthe United Nations has ken authonzed hy the treaty or agreement

toeffect registration.

As the Truçteeçhip Agreement makes no referenceto registration, that can only

have beendone on the ùasis that the United Nations was a party to the Agreement.62 NORTHERN CAMEROONS

inhahitants of the territory under the Agreement made with the

United Nations and so to duplicate the responsibilities of the

General Assembly and Trusteeship Council.

32. The United Kingdom submit that to interpret Article 19

in the way contended for by the Republic of Cameroon so that the

Court can now hold an inquest upon the conduct of the United

Kingdom during the currency of the Trnsteeship Agreement u~ould

be to put an unreasonable interpretation not merely on Article 19

itself but upon the Trusteeship Agreement and Chapter XII of the

Charter. Under the Tmsteeship Agreement and the Charter, the

United Kingdom was to be accountable to the General Assembly,

whose duty it was to supervise the discharge of the obligations of

the United Kingdom in respect of the inhabitants of the country.

It was not, in the submission of the United Kingdom, intended

that individual Members should be entitled to indict the United

Kingdom before the Court with regard to the manner in which the

United Kingdom discharged its trust. The forumfor such complaints

was to be the United Nations, either the General Assembly or the

Trusteeship Council. Moreover it was intended, the United Kingdom

submits, that the United Nations in collaboration with the adminis-

tering authority should have the right and the duty to settle such

matters definitively. It was not, the United Kingdom submits, in-

tended that decisions of these organs should be subjected to judicial

review by the Court at the instance of individual illembers of the

United Nations, and particularly of a Member of the United

Nations who did not hecome a Member until long after the execution

of the Trusteeship Agreement. To maintain, therefore, that Ar-

ticle19 has such an effect as the Republic of Cameroon claims, is

to place an unreasonably wide constrnction upon Article 19 and

one that is untenable in the light of the Trusteeship Agreement

taken as a whole and of the Charter.

33. It was considerations such as these which led the British

Government to maintain, as they did in their Note of 26 illay1961

(see Annex 2 to Cameroon Memorial), the following:

(a) "But the dispute in this case does not appear to be between

them (the British Govemment) and the Cameroon Government,

but hetween the Cameroon Government and the United Nations

General Assembly '. In administering the CameroonsHer Malesty s

Govemment have throughout acted under the supervision of the

United Nations General Assemblyand in accordance with its direc-

tives. Thepolicies or practices with which the Cameroon Govem-

ment find fault have been endorsed by the United Nations and it

would not be proper for Her Majesty's Government to take,upon

themselves the submission to the International Court of a dispute

concerning them. Her hlajesty's Govemment's obligations as ad-

' That the Republic of Cameroon was in dispute with the United Nations was

admitted by its delegation in the Fourth Cornont13 Aprirg6r (AIC.4IS.R.

1141.p. 11:2nd to 4th lines on the page).64 XORTHERN CAklEROONS

"..it solely upon the basis oflaw that the GovernmentofCamer-

oon proposesto place itself"

and in paragraph 6 of which it is stated,

"The Govemment of Cameroonproposessimply to ask the Court

to state the law, and no more."

It appears from these passages in the Application and the Memorial

that the Republic of Cameroon is not seeking any decision from the

Court, but solely a statement of the law. It is, in effect, seeking

to obtain from the Court an Advisory Opinion with regard to the

execution of the Trusteeship Agreement which terminated the day

after the Republic filedits Application to the Court. In thesubmission

of the United Kingdom, Article 19ofthe Agreement was not intended

to and does nothave the effectof enabling the Republic of Cameroon

to obtain such an Opinion; and the Republic is not entitled to seek

such an Opinion under the guise of a declaratory judgment. The

late Judge Sir Hersch Lauterpacht stated in his book The Denelop

ment of International Law by the International Court ((1958)p. 250),

after referring to the fact that the Court has recognized that "there

are certain limits ... to the Court's duty to reply" to requests for

advisory opinions,

"The Court has exliibited a similar tendency in relation to the

question of its competence to render declaratory judgments-a

matter in a senseconnectedwith Advisory Opinionsinasmuch,unless

the rendering of declaratory judgments, i.e. judgments unrelated

to a concrete claim for redress in respect of an alleged particular

act,is kept within limits, the jurisdiction of the Court might be

used as a means for obtaining Advisory Opinions by -States (as

distinguished from requests by an authorized organ or specialized

agency of the United Nations). The Statute wisely makes no

provision for requests for Advisory Opinions,which are not binding,

by individual States..."

The Republic of Cameroon is not seeking any redress; it is seeking

to secure condemnation of the conduct of the United Kingdom in

relation to the Trusteeship Agreement over a long period of time,

and a period antecedent to its membership of the United Nations

and a period which terminated the day after the Republic filed

its Application to the Court. In the circumstances, in the submission

of the United Kingdom, the Court should refuse to hear the

Republic's claim and should reject it.

36. Further examination of the Application and the Memorial,

however, shows that, despite the statements to the contras.

quoteù above, no questions of law are involved, except possibly

on one point, and the Court is not heing asked to statethe law but

to pronounce almost entirely upon questions of fact. The complaints

of the Repiiblic of Cameroon are listed on page 19of its Application.

They are as foliows: COUSTER-JIE3IORIAL OF THE UNITED KISGDO3I 65

"(a) The Xorthern Cameroons have not, in spite of the text of

Article 5, paragraph (b), of the Trusteeship Agreement, been ad-

ministered as a separate temtory nithin an administrative union,

but as an integral part of Nigeria."

As to this, the manner in which the Northern Cameroons has been

administered is a question of fact. The effect of Article 5 of the

Agreement is a question of law, but it cannot seriously be argued

that the Agreement required administration as a separate temtory

when the Article expressly provides for its administration "as an

integral part" of the Administering Authority's territory.

"(b) Article 6 of the Tmsteeship Agreement laid down as ob-

jectives the development offreepolitical institutions, a progressively

increasing share for the inhabitants of the Territory in theninis-

trative services, their participation in advisory and legislative

bodies and in the govemment of the Territory. These objectives.

in the opinion ofthe KepublicofCameroon,have not been obtained."

Whether or not they have heen obtained is a question of fact. Even

if the opinion of the Republic was right, no question of the inter-

pretation or application of the Trusteeship Agreement (see Ar-

ticle 19 of the Agreement) is involved.

"(c) The Tmsteeship Agreement did not authorize the Admini-

stering Power to administer the Territory as two separate parts,

contrary to themle of unity, in accordance with two administrative

systems and following separate courses of political development."

The Trusteeship Agreement replaced the Mandate under which

the Northern and Southern Cameroons were two separate parts.

The Agreement did not, nor did the General Assembly or Tmstee-

ship Council after its conclusion, require the two parts to be joined,

to beadministeredtogether and to follow the same course ofpolitical

development.

"(d) The provisions of paragraph 7 of resolution 1473 relating

to the separation of the administration of the Northern Cameroons

from that of Nigeria have not been followed."

Whether or not the provisions of the resolntion have been foiiowed

is a question of fact. No question of the application or interpre-

tation of the Tmsteeship Agreement is involved.

"(e) The measures provided for in paragraph 6 of the same

mental functions and the effective democratization of the system-

of local govemment have not been implernented."

Whether they have or have not heen implemented is a question of

fact, not involving the interpretation or application of the Tmstee-

ship Agreement.

"(f) The conditions laid down by paragraph 4 of the resolution

for the drawing up of electoral lists were interpreted in a discrimi-66 NORTHERN CAnIEROONS

natory manner, by giving an improper interpretation to the qualifi-

cation of ordinary residence."

This too is a question of fact, not involving the interpretation or

application of the Trusteeship Agreement.

"(g) Practices, acts or omissionsof the local Trusteeship author-

ities during the period preceding the plebiscite and during the

elections themselves altered the normal course of the consultation

and involved consequencesin conflict with the Trusteeship Agree-

ment."

Whether they did so or not is a question of fact, not involving the

interpretation or application of the Trusteeship Agreement.

37. Article 32 (2)of the Rules of Court requires that the appli-

cation should as far as possible statethe precise nature of the claim

and give a succinct statement of facts and ground on nrhich the

claim is based, these facts and grounds being developed in the

Memorial to which the evidence will be annexed. In the sub-

mission of the United Kingdom, neither the Application nor the

Memorial of the Republic of Cameroon complies with this Rule.

The Court is asked to declare in hoth documents that the United

Kingdom "failed in certain obligations directly or indirectly flowing

therefrom [from the Trusteeship Agreement] on the various points

set out above". The "various points set out above" are presumably

those stated in the preceding paragraph,but neither the Application

nor the Memonal specify the "certain obligations" flowing from the

Agreement which it is alleged that the United Kingdom failed to

fulfü. For instance, the opinion of the Republic that the objectives

specified in Article6of the Agreement have not been attained, is no

evidence of the fact if it be the fact, and no ground for aiieging a

breach by the United Kingdom of the Agreement. Moreover, the

two annexes filed by the Republic do not constitute evidence in

support of any claim by the Republic.

38. In the submission of the United Kingdom, the Court is for

the reasons stated without jurisdiction in the present case and

should refuse to hear it. But rather than that they should remain

unanswered, the United Kingdom will answer as systematically

as possible, despite their vagueness, the allegations made by the

Republic of Cameroon in its Application and Memorial. COUSTER->lEi\IORI AFLTHE USITED KISGDO>I 67

PART II

The Legality of the United Kingdom Administration of the

Trust Territory

Introduction

39. Part II of the Memorial of the Republic of Cameroon in

effect makes thrce allegations against the United Kingdom in

respect of its administration of the Trust Territory:

(n)first, that the United Kingdom, in breach of the Trusteeship

Agreement, administered the Northern Cameroonsas an integral

part of Nigeria;

(6)secondly, that the United Kingdom, in breach of the Tmtee-

ship Agreement, divided the Trust Territory for administrative

purposes, into the Northern and Southern parts; and

(c) thirdly, although the precise nature of this allegation is not

clear from the Memorial, it is apparently suggested that the

United Kingdom failed to fulfil the objectives of the Trustee-

ship, as set out in Article 7Gof the Charter and in the Trustee-

ship Agreement itself.

A. ALLEGATION CONCERNING THE ADZIINISTRATIO NF THE

NORTHERN CAIIEROOSS AS AS ISTEGRAL PART OF NIGERIA

40. The first ailegation, namely that the admiiiistratioii of the

Northern Cameroons as an integral part of Nigeria constituted a

hreach of obligations undertaken by the United Kingdom in the

Trusteeship Agreement, ignores the plain words of paragraphs (a)

and (b) of Article5 of the Agreement which expressly require the

administration of the Trust Territory as anntegral part of United

Kingdom territory (such as Nigeria then was) and authorize it to

he constituted intoan administrative union withadjacent territories

under United Kingdom sovereignty or control (which in this case

could only mean the provinces of Nigeria)1.

41.The facts on which the British Govemment rely are fully

set out in Annexes II and III to this Counter-Memorial. From these

facts the foilowing conclusions about the nature of the territory

administered can be drawn:

(a) The shape and nature of the Temtory was such as to make

administration of the British Cameroons as an entity imprac-

ticahle.

(b) Administration of the Temtory as an entity would not, if

practicable, have been desirahle, since:

The full terfnArtic5(a) and (b) seoutin paragruph:~7:ofPart 1hcreof.

668 SORTHERK CAalEROONS

(i) The boundary of the former German protectorate was a

historical accident resulting from the trading dominance

acquired by the Germans in various parts of the territory

from 1880 onwards.

(ii) The German protectorate consisted of fragments of regions

which had once been entities in so far as they remained at

al1 constant in the fluctuating fortunes of tribal wars. In

particular, it included a small part of Adamawa and a

small part of Benue-the rest of these empires being

included in Xigeria and French Equatorial Africa.

(iii) Consequently, the boundaries of the Territory placed under

British administration cut across tribal areas and there

were rarely ethnic or religious ties between the various

groups of inhabitants in different areas nlthin the Terri-

tory. In particular, the peoples of the Northern Cameroons

had greater ethnic and religious affinities with theireigh-

bours in contiguous Nigeria than with the peoples of the

Southern Cameroons.

(iv) Economically, there was not the slightest prospect of the

Territory becoming a viable independent economic unit.

(c) For the reasons stated in subparagrapli (b) above, it was more

desirable that theXorthern Cameroons should be administered

together uith the Northern region of Xigeria.

The facts on which these concliisions are based show that it was in

accordance with the interests of the inhabitants and with the

objectives of the Trusteeship Agreement to administer the Northern

Cameroons as an integral part of Nigeria.

42. Xot only is it clear that this method of administration wns in

accordancc with the Trusteeship Agreement, but, as shown in

Annex III to this Counter-Memorial, the facts and circumstances

were nt al1 material times fnlly known to the Trusteeship Council

and the General Assembly, under whose supervision the Territory

\vasadministered. The situation \vaskno\i.n by the General Assembly

at thc time when the Trusteeship Agreement was approved, and

was fully investigated both by the Trusteeship Council itself and

by United Xations Visiting JIissions and by the Committee on

Administrative Unions.

43. At no time did the Trusteeship Council or the General

Assembly adopt any resolution taking the position that the manrier

in which the Northern Cameroons was administered by the United

Kingdom was incompatible with Article 5 of the Trusteeship

Agreement. Nor did the Trusteeship Council ever find it necessary

to avail itself of the opportunity given by subparagraph (c) of

General Assembly resolution 224 (III) (Annex V (5))to reqnest an

advisory opinion of the Court as to whether this form of adminis-

tration was within the scope of and compatible wlth the Charter of COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

69

the United Nations and the Trusteeship Agreement. On the contrary,

supervision by the General Assembly and the Trusteeship Council

was exercised on the basis that the territory \vas so administered.

It is completely without foundation to suggest now that the

administration was in any way a breach of the Trusteeship Agree-

ment or of the United Nations Charter.

44. \trith respect to the second allegation, the Trusteeship Agree-

ment contains no express prohibition against the division of the

Cameroons into two parts for the purposes of administration. As

in the case of ali internationalagreements, the Trusteeship Agree-

ment is to be interpreted in the light of the surrounding circuin-

stances, the history of its conclusion and the subsequent practice

of the parties.

45. The facts set out in Annex II to this Counter-Nemorial

explain why it \vas neither practicable nor in the best interests of

the inhabitants to administer the tivo parts of the Territory as a

single entity. Certain of the conclusions to be dra~vn from those

facts have been set out in paragraph 41 above and these arc also

relevant to the present issue. In addition, there is thensider t'ion

that the physical character of the Territory made contact between

the northern and southern parts of it extremely difficult. The fact

is that the Trust Territory\\.as 'hot a country in the ordinary sense

of the term but a geographical expression" (see the report of the

Mandatory Power to the Permanent Mandates Commission for 1929

quoted in paragraph 7 of Annex III). Fnrthermore, it must be

borne in mind that the priiiciple on whicli the Territory was gov-

erned nns that of indirect rule, which sought to bring political and

social advancement to the inhabitants by working through existing

tribal institutions. Consequently, the preservation of the existing

tribal and religious affiliations referred to in paragraph41 above

assumed importance and led to considerahle differencesof political

organization as between the Xorthern Cameroons and the Southem

Cameroons.

46. Having regard to these facts it is, in the submission of the

British Government, clcar that the Trusteeship Agreement was

not intended to reqiiire the administration of the Territory as a

single unit. Once more, they rely on the fact that the division of

the Territory into the Xorthern Cameroons and the Southern

Cameroons was known to the General Assembly at the timc when

the Trusteeship -4greemcnt was approved and formed the basis

on which the Trusteeship Conncil and the General Assembly exer-

cised their supervision throughout the period of the trnsteeship.70 NORTIIERN CAMEROONS

47. It may, moreover, be rioted in particular that both General

Assembly resolution 1350(XIII) (Annex 1' (34))and General Assem-

bly resolution 1473 (XlV) (Annex V (38)).concerning the future of

the Trust Territory, recognized the division of the Temtory into

two parts and recommended separate plebiscites in each part.

Indeed, the General Assembly provided by resolution 1608 (XV)

(Annex V (40)) for the termination of the Trusteeship Agreement

for each part separately and at different timcs. The complaints of

the Republic of Cameroon imply that the General Assembly itself

approved of and committed breaches of the Trusteeship Agreement.

C.ALLECATIO SOSCERKISG FAILURE TO FULFIL THE

OBJECTIVE SF THE TRUSTEESHIP

48. The third allegation made in the lfemorial seems to be

that the United Kingdom, in its administration of the Trust

Territory, failed to achieve the basic objectives of the trusteeship.

This allegation is made in the vaguest terms and with virtually no

evidence to substantiate it. In the submission of the British Govern-

ment, it is disposed of by the facts set out in Annexes II and III

to this Counter-Alemorial. The method of administration adopted

from the beginning of British administration was specifically

designed to meet the needs of the Territory. In the geographic,

ethnic and historical context described in Annex II the United

Kingdom sought to govern on the basic principle of indirect rule.

The reasons for this are explained in Annex III, and can be summa-

rized by saying that the object \vas to educate the local inhabitants

"to manage their own affairs and to evolve from their own insti-

tutions a mode of government which shall conform to civilized

standards", rather than to impose alien institutions however

praiseworthy they might be. This form of government was approved

by the Permanent Mandates Commission. \$Then the Territory

became subject to the Trusteeship Agreement in 1946 this method

of government nras continued in the pattern of affairs resulting

from Nigeria's gradua1 evolution towards independence, but with

a full consciousness, as appears from Annex III, of the ultimately

separate and severable responsibility of the United Kingdom

towards the Trust Territory.

49. From I October 1960, when the Federation of Xigeria

became independent, until the termination of the trusteeship in

respect of the Northem Camerobns, that part of the Territory

was administered as an independent entity, although its existence

as a separate entity after the conclusion of the plebiscite was not

in fact contemplated, the choice before the people being either

union with the Federation of Nigeria or union with the Republic

of Cameroon. In this interim period, in circumstances radically

different from those envisaged by the Trusteeship Agreement, the COUXTEH-MEAlORIAL OF THE UNITED KINGDO>I 7f

United Kingdom sought (in the manner described in Annex III)

to implement General Assembly resolution 1352 (XIV) (Annex V

(35)) and to continue to fulfil its obligations under the Trusteeship

Agreement.

50. The basic objectives of the trusteeship system are contained

in Article76 of the United'iVations Charter. They are:

"(a) to further international peace and security;

(bj to promote the political,'cconomic, social, and ediicational

advancement of the inhabitants of the tmst territories, and their

progressive development towards self-governmentor independence

as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each

territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the

peoples concerned, and as may be provided by the term. of . eacli

trusteeship agreement;

(c) to encourage respect for human rights'and for fundamental

freedoms for ail,without distinction as to race, ses, language, or

religion, and to encourage recogiiition of the interdependence of

the peoplesof the world: and

(d) to ensure equal treatirient in social, economic,and commer-

cial matters forl1klembersof the United Nationsand their nation-

als. and also equal treatment for the latter in the administration

of justice, without prejudice to the attainment of the foregoing

objectives and subject to theprovisioiisof Article 80."

51. In fulfilment of the aims prescribed in Article 6 of the Trus-

teeship Agreement ',the Trust Territory in soine 44 years of British

administration, procecded on a course of politic4 and social evo-

lution which, overcoming formidable obstacles of every, kind,

ultimately allowed the two parts of the Territory to take their

place as integral parts of the independent sovereign States of the

Federation of Nigeria and the liederal Republic of Cameroon.

52. The burden of substantiating this general allegation is, there-

fore, a heavy one. It must also overcome the simple and fundamental

fact thnt the General Assembly and the Tmsteeship Council of

the Unite'd Nations.were at al1times in full possession of the facts

concerning United.Kingdom administration of the Territory. As

already indicated in paragraph 42 above, year by year, the British

Government as Administenng Authority reported on every aspect

of its administration to the Trusteeship Council. It provided each

year a detailed description and nnalysis, with abundant statistics,

of the development of the Territory. The Trusteeship Council was,

therefore, fully able to follow this development in aii its aspects

and to assist the General Assembly, in accordance with paragraph 2

of Article 85 of the Charter, in exercising its supervision over the

administration of the Trust ter rit or^ ..nce again, it mnst be

observed that at no time did the General Assembly or the Trustee-

ship Council record its opinion that the United Kingdom had failed

' ArticlGis fully surnrnarizedin paragrofhPart 1of ThisCountcr-Mernorial.to meet its obligations as Adrninistering Authonty in promoting the

aims and objectives of the trusteeship.

PART III

The Course of the PlebisciteOperations

Introduction

53. The allegations made by the Republic of Cameroon in its

Memorial are of a most serious character for one Government to

make against another Government and the burden of proving them

rests squarely on the Government of the Republic. They are pre-

sented in the Memorial without any attempt to support them with

exidence or even to suggest that evidence is available to support

them. Further, the Rlemorialdoes not specify what legal obligations

of the United Kingdom are alleged to have been broken in the con-

duct ofthe second Cameroonsplebisciteor howthey have beenbroken.

54. It is, therefore, submitted that the Memorialoes not make

out any case for the British Govemment to answer in so far as

it is based on the "Course of the Plebiscite Operations". Never-

theless, while in no way admitting the Republic's auegations either

in fact or in law, the British Government wish to offer the foilowing

comments on Part III of the Memorial.

55. The preparation and conduct of the plebiscite held in 1961

in both the Northern and Southem Cameroons were supervised

on behalf of the United Nations by the United Nations Plebiscite

Commissioner, Dr. Djalal Abdoh, and his staff. Dr. Abdoh, who

was appointed as United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner by secret

baiiot at the 794th meeting of the General Assembly on 13 March

1959,made a comprehensive report on the plebiscite contained in

document T/1556 which was placed before the Trusteeship Council

at its Eleventh Special Session in April1961, and was placed before

the General Assembly at its Fifteenth Session in April 1961, as

document Al4727 of IIApril 1961.That report.does not make and

does not support any allegation of breach by the United Kingdom

of the Trusteeship Agreement or of the United Nations Charter

in any way in connection with the plebiscite in the Northern Cam-

eroons. The British Govemment relies on the conclusions drawn

in that report and denies the auegations made in the Mernorial

of any misconduct or any breach of the Trusteeship Agreement

or of the Charter in connection with the plebiscite.

(a) Conduct of Registration.

56. The distinctions between qualifications for voting in the

Northern and Southern Cameroons flowedfrom the United Nations COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 73

resolutions 1352 (XIV) (Annex V (35)) and 1473 (XIV) (Annex V

(38))cited in the Memorial. The criterion for voting in the Northern

Cameroons was the same in 1961 as for the 1959 plebiscite, but the

Mernorial does not seek to impugn the earlier plebiscite. The term

"ordinarily resident" was fully discussed in and explained to both

the Fourth Committee and the General Assembly itself hefore

resolution 1473 (XIV) was adopted unanimously in December 1959.

In any event, the distinction was not caused by "inadequacy of

action" in the Northern Cameroons, as may he inferentiaiiy alleged,

although the Memorial provides no evidence in support of any such

allegation.

57. In fact, the distinction can be largely traced to the dis-

~~

ngrwriicnr bct\rt:en Go\.eriimcnt and olq>osiiion in the Suutlivrii

C;inieruuns on the ~iii;~liricat~orifsor i.otiniiitlic 5uutltt:rn Cnm-

eroons, which becaAe apparent at the theenth session of the

General Assembly. Discussion in that territory failed subsequently

to produce agreement hetween the parties. There was no such

background of interna1 factional interests in the Northern Camer-

oons and consequently some distinction in the form of the quali-

fications was to be expected.

58. As the Memorial correctly States, in the Northern Cameroons

persons were registered who could satisfy the simple conditions set

out in Dr. Abdoh's report at paiagraph 375, but these conditions

in no ivay conflicted with the relevant General Assembly resolution

(No. 1473 (XIV), Annex V (38)).

59. The British Government deny the allegations that the regis-

tration was not carried out under the proper control of the United

Nations and that the representatives of the pro-Cameroon parties

were not permitted to follow its course. On thecontrary,theproper

conduct of registration under United Nations supervision is ex-

pressly affirmed by paragraph 379 of Dr. Abdoh's report which

reads as follows:

"The registration itself was well conducted over the whole of

the period. With the vigilance of Registration Officersand United

Nations Observers, and with the aid of the Registration Super-

visors, who were normally assigned to oversee the personnel in

three to five registration arens, most of such minor errors such as

omissionsof names and faulty serialisation of registration numbers

were corrected."

60. The British Government further deny that "electors likely

to vote for reunification with Cameroon were systematically left

off the registers" and the innuendo in the statement that this was

done by "the Chiefs faithful to Nigeria". In fact, registration of

voters in the Northern Cameroons was camed out by Assistant

Registration Officers recruited in the manner described in para-

graphs 368 and 369 of Dr. Abdoh's report which read as follows:74 NORTHER'I CAhIEROONS

tion areas of the Northern Cameroons, the Administration requiredtra-

a total of430Assistant Registration Officers. These oficials were

recruited from within the Trust Territory with the exception of

twenty-five students of the Xuman Teacher Training Collegewhich

is situated in Adamawa Province in the Northern Region, but it

is worthy of note that half their number were indigenous to the

Northern Cameroons. The Assistant liegistration Officerswere re-

cruited from the various educational establishments inside the

Territory including the staff and pupils of the Teacher Training

Colleges at Baissa and Rluhi, of the senior.primaiy schools, and

teachers from the various Native Authority and voluntary agency

schools.

369. Since it was the first time that women had been given the

rightto vote in the Xorthern Cameroons:the Administration made

every effort toecmit suitably qualified women to serve as Assistant

Registration Officersand thus ta lend encouragement to potential

women voters to come forward to register. A total of twenty-five

women served as registration officiaisin the various districts in the

Northern Cameroons. and United Nations Observers and Admini-

strationOfficiaisalike attested to their efficiencyand effectiveness."

61. It is not clear precisely what allegation is based on the increase

in the number of registered voters in &luhiand the two districts of

Dikwa. There was not, however, anything sinister in this increase

wliich was partly due to theregistration of yomen votcrs for the

first tirne, partly to increased interest in the active campaign

pursucd by the advocates of bath points of view in the plebiscite

and partly to natural causes.

(b) Distribution of Voting Papers.

62. The impartiality of the operation is doubted by reference

ta an aiiegation that agents in the pay of the Government of Nigeria

distributed voting papers. This is denicd and the inference is conse-

quently unsupportecl. Xo paid agents of the Nigerian Government

had any opportunity of distributing voters' cards. Tliese were

distributed by the Assistant Registration Officers, who were almost

entirely inhabitants of the Northern Cameroons (para. 368 of

Dr. Abdoh's report, op. cit.). This was in accordance witli para-

graph 7 of the Northern Cameroons Plebiscite (Registration)

Regulations 1960 (Annex XVII to the report of the United Xations

Plebiscite Commissioner), which laid down in detail how persons

were to be registered and cards issued. '

63. It is denied that persons wishing to protest to the United

Nations Observer at Mnbi urere prevented from doing sa for fear

of reprisals, or that the police interrogatedhose who did so. Neither

the United Nations Observer at Mubi nor any resident of Mubi

made any such complaint to the Administrator or his staff. The

United Nations Office in Rlubi, together with that of the Adminis-

trator, the Resident and the District Officer, were on an open site COUNTER-hlEAlORlAL OF THE UNITED KISGDO31 75

and were naturally closetogether in that they had al1been construct-

ed specially for the administration of the plebiscite. The police did

not interfere in any way with access by inhabitants of the Trust

Tcrritory to the United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner or the

observers. It is significant tliat no case in which they did so is cited.

(c)Psychological Climate.

64. The allegations made under this heading, without any

evidence in support, are gener'ally denied.

65. The allegation of an "unfavoiirable psycliological climate"

can best be considered by refcrence to the full comments on the

general political situation in paragraphs 523 to 533 of Dr. Abdoh's

report. Dr. Abdoh States that in matters to which he drew attention

he had the co-operation and understanding of the Administrator

and that measures taken as a result of allegations and complaints

went a long way to\\rards removing obstacles to the exercise of

political nghts by al1concerned.

66. Similarly, the report, paragraphs 452 to 457, treats in great

detail of the question of arrest, wliich answers in factual terms

the somewhat generalized allegations of arrest and imprisonment

which are denied.

67. Dr. Abdoh does not refer at al1to the visit of the Secretary-

General of the Cameroon Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the context

in which it is placed in the hfemorial, nor does he refer tothe aUegec1

arrest of more than 300 supporters of "reunification" returning from

Maroua.

68. The United Nations Observers were from time to time asked

to ascertain the facts in regard to alleged arrests. The results of

investigations are fully set out by Dr. Abdoli, and the pattern and

conclusion of one of these enquiries may be mentioned as an cx-

ample in rebuttal of the charges. On II November, Mallam Umaru

Rficika, President of the KFP (a party favouring union with the

Cameroon Republic), made an aUegation that the prison had been

filled with people because of their political associations.' He nras

asked for the prisoners' names, but was unable to provide any.

He then asked permission to visit the jail so that he could

find out \Vhothey were. He visited the jail and produced a list of

seven cases. Other names were added by another person bringing

the total to rz. Of these only seven cases of jm~risonnient could

possibly be considered to have arisen from offences having any

political connotation. These 'cases are listed in paragraph 455 of

Dr. Abdoh's report. Dr. Abdoh shows that the possibility of allowing

persons charged with offences to be represented hy counsel of their

choice was considered but ded out because no provision existed

for the appearance of defence -lavers in Native Court procedure.76 NORTHERS CAMEROONS

69. His report shows, further, that steps were taken by the

Administrator to meet his anxieties about cases arising in particular

urider section 393 of the Penal Code of Northern Nigeria.

70. Dr. Abdoh describes (para. 461) an investigation carried out

by the United Nations Liaison Officer at hfubi, together with the

Kesident and Mallam Yero, the representative of the Government

of Cameroon, into di prisoners at that time in Mubi jail. Maliam

Yero visited the jail to interview these prisoners and on the basis

of these interviews, a list was prepared showing that there were

only 15 cases of offences in connection with political meetings.

Dr. Abdoh adds:

"According to the report of the SeniorDistrict Officer,upon con-

clusion of the questioning MallarnYero expressed himselfas being

satisfiedthat the personsconcemed had been irnprisoned on reason-

able and legitimate grounds, and only requested that the four

prisoners awaiting trial should be brought before the Courts as soon

as possible. This, the Senior District Officerassured him,uld be

done. Mallam Yero also warned three of the prisoners he had seen

that since permits were required to hold political meetings, they

should have observed the law. He told thern that similar laws in

respect of public meetingsexisted in the Republic of Carneroonand

asked the three persons concerned to convey what he had said

to the other prisoners."

71. The 43(sic) persons referred to by the Cameroon Government

as being reported to the United Nations Observer at Mubi on

24 January were investigated by the Plebiscite Comrnissioner.

An analysis of these names and 16 other names suhmitted, making

a total of 58, showed that II names were duplicated, eight could

not be traced, IOwere releascd before the plebiscite, one was released

on bail before the plebiscite, seven had no political significance,

one appeal was dismissed and one allowed, four were awaiting appeal

and Ij did not appeal; at the time of the plebiscite 20 of these

persons were, in fact, in prison and of these seven were imprisoned

on convictions which had no political significance (para. 477).

72. The complaints of arrests came almost entirely from the

Madagali, Michika and Muhi districts of the Mubi Native Authority

where the parties favourahle to unification with the Cameroon

Republic had consistently shown themselves as contesting the

lawful authority of the newly constituted Native Authority and of

the Native Courts. The 35 persons reported on zg January 1961,

mentioned in the pamphlet as arrested are referred to in detail in

paragraphs 471 and 472 of the Plebiscite Commissioner's report.

Of these persons four were imprisoned and the remainder fined.

73. The Magistrate's judgrnent indicates that the incident arose

from persons making their way into a Native Court and interrupting

proceedings. These proceedings had to be suspended. The Magistrate

said that "the defence has produced nothing to weaken the prose- COUNTER-MEhiORIAL OF THE UNITED KINGDObl 77

cution evidence ...It is clear that the intention of this assembly

was to intimidate the native court by a show of force."

B. IRREGULARITIE AND LACK OF SAFEGUARD DURING

THE PLEBISCITE CAMPAIGN

(a) Alleged Discriminatory Measures.

74. These allegations are denied. In respect of freedom of speech,

Dr. Abdoh describes in his report how a directive nas issued by the

Administrator, requiring Native Authorities to grant a permit for

any public assembly unless they were satisfied that a breach of the

peace \vas likely to arise. Of the period after this directive was issued,

the United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner reports:

"486. Therecontinued to be a fewinstancesin whichpermits were

refused,sometimesforvalid reasons,e.g.to hold meetingson market

days in or near the market places. addition, a few permits were

refusedbecause the applications were either vague or contained

requests for meetings to be held on morethan one day. In those

cases where the reasons for refusal were different from those set

out in the proclamation, representations were made and, usually.

followingan investigation, the permiwere granted."

75. There was no discrimination against those favouring "re-

unification". Of the few permits refused, more related to applica-

tions by the XiiDP/KFP than to applications by the other parties,

but in most cases this was hecause, although the prescribed pro-

cedure was well known tothe applicants, they neglected to follow it.

76. No permission was reqnircd for meetings other than those

held in public places. There was no requirement of permission for

meetings in private places and no restriction on the number of

persons who could attend these meetings. Very many such meetings

took place and were attended by anything up to about zoo persons

at a time.

77. The allegations of discrimination in respect of political

publications can be refuted by reference to paragraphs 490 to 498

of Dr. Abdoh's report. In paragraph 491, he describes how, as a

result of a complaint by the NKDP, he agreed with the Adminis-

trator that only parties registered in the Northern Cameroons or

persons eligible to vote in the plebiscite would be entitled to dis-

tribute propaganda posters and leaflets. He adds that subsequently

al1 posters favouring union witb Nigeria were properly identified

with the name of the printers and the sponsors. In the case of some

posters favouring union with the Republic of Cameroon, this was

not so.

78. It is denied that documents had, under the law or in practice,

to be printed in Nigeria, and that material from the Republic of

Cameroon was refused admission. Thc only requirement under the

law was that posters should bear the name of the printer and the7S SORTIiERS CAJIEROOSS

pubiisher and that persons wishing to publisb matter of a poiitical

nature should notify the Adrninistrator and deposit with him copies

of the test. This law was not intended for purposes of ccnsorship,

and was never so regardecl. Dr. Abdoh says (at para. 497) "... no

charges of censorship aere ever made".

79. The Administrator personally advised officialsof the NI<DP/

KFP how they could comply with the law and in fact large numbers

of posters printed in the Kepublic of Cameroon did circulate in

the Territory. The ailegation that material from tlie Repuljlic of

Cameroon was forbidden may have arisen from the incident referred

to in paragraph 49s of the report of the United Nations Plebiscite

Commissioner. In this case, a poster publishcd by the NKI)P/KFP

and printed in the Republic of Cameroon, but not deposited with

the Administrator in advance, was withdrawn at the request of

the Administrator on the grouiids thnt it could be used to mislead

the population.

(O) Alleged Restrictions on Movement.

So. It is denied that movemcnt was improperly restricted as

alleged in the Rlemorial.

SI. It is true that under the la\\. as it stood at the begiiining of

the campaign, vehicles from the Kepublic of Cameroon were required

to carry third-party insurance and registration in the Trust Terri-

tory. No vehicle was, howe\rer, at any time during tlie plebiscite

campaign prevented from entering the Trust Territory because it

lacked these documents, with the single exception of one car that

had been involved in an accident.

82. Notwithstanding this, as soon as the Administrator's atten-

tion \vas drawn to the fact by Dr. Abdoh that the law might impede

the entry of vehicles, even though it had never been applied for

this purpose, hetook steps to promiilgate a law (described in para. 500

of the report of the Plebiscite Commissioner) \\.hich removed these

requirements, and to draw it to the attention of the partics.

83. On the general question of complaints made that movement

into and out of the Territory \vas restricted, the United Nations

Plebiscite Commissioner States in paragraphs SOI and 502 of his

report the following:

"501. ...The United Nations Liaison Officer in Mubi, for his

part, reported that he had passed through tlie frontier between

the Territory and the Republic along the road from Mubito Garoua

on at least six occasions and that he had visited the borderon,at

least four other occasions, and that he had not noted an? pol?ce

officers or othei authorities posted for the purpose of stopping

'vehicles. Xeither 1 nor United Nations officials wlio travel!ed

repeatedly on the road from hlubi to Garoua found a checkpoint

on the PITorthemCameroonsside of the border. COUNTER-ME>IORIAL OF THE UNITED KISGDOXI 79

502. With regard to the complaint made ...that persons from the

Republic of Cameroon were not freely admitted to the Northern

Cameroons, it should be iioted that a similar statement had pre-

viously been made by persons from within the Territory as well.

Thesecomplairits werebrought tomy attentionand that oftheUnited

Xations Liaisoii Officer in hfubi, and iio evidence was found tliat

the free movement of persons into and out of tlie Territory had

been impeded. In fact, during the period when these complaints

were investigated the Mayor of Garoua was moving freely about the

Territory, even prior to his accreditation as Liaison and Information

Officer fromtlie Republic at hfubi."

(c) Alleged Activc Participation of Authorities and Officiais in

Favour of Nigeria.

84. Ali allegations of intimidation which are directed in general

against British and Nigerian agents and officials, and in particular

at the Resident at Rlubi, are denied. In so far as they derive from

the position and influence of the Resident at Mubi, they are mis-

conceived in thcir purported factual foundation. The Resident was

not in charge of the Administration and was seconded to the

Northern Cameroons from Nigeria and paid from Northern Cam-

eroons funds. The allegation as to the future of officials in the

event of failurc can necessarily be refuted only by comparison

with treatment of officials who assisted in the south during the

plebiscite. Members of the Nigerian service seconded (in exactly

the same way as in the Northern Cameroons) to the Southern

Cameroons have been free to revert to the Nigerian service in spite

of the result of the plebiscite in that part of the territory.

85. In respect of the employment of officials generally, this is

dealt with in paragraphs 420 and 421 of the report of the Plebiscite

Commissioner as follows:

"420. As regards expatriate staff, it would, have heen in the

Administrator's view wholly impracticable to bring to the Territory

and to employ in its administration expatriate officials from tlie

United Kingdom or from British territories who were neither

acquainted with the problems of the area nor able to communicate

with the people in the local languages. It was for these reasons

that the Administering Authority decided to retain on a second-

ment buis from the Xorthem Region Government the services of

such numbers of officiais (British as well as Nigerians) as were

required for the administration of the Northern Cameroons. Their

numbers, although limited during the period when the Territory

was administered as a part of the Northern Region, had to be supple-

mented hy additional staff when the administration of the Northern

Cameroons was constituted as a separate unit with its own admin-

istration. Tliese officials, including the newly appointed Resident,

were also seconded to the Northern Cameroons from the Northem

Region Government.

421. It was inevitable that the links of the above officials with

the Northern Region Government, which most of them had served80 NORTHERNCAMEROONS

for someyears past, as wellas their ownsympathiestowards Nigeria.

would open the door to suspicion of partiality and become the

subject of bitter complaints from the parties which favoured union

with the Republic of Cameroon. However, no specificevidence of

impropriety was brought to light."

86. The allegation in respect of the Arabs of Bama is denied. A

fuU investigation was made into the charges at the time and they

were without foundation, and the Resident stated that the facts

alleged were incorrect.

87. The allegation in respect of discrimination in the withdrawal

of representatives is denied. An identical letter was addressed to the

representatives in the Territory of both Governments,inviting them

to withdraw on the date in question personalities from ontside the

Territory who had been advising the parties in the campaign. As

explained in the two letters, in addition to theficialrepresentatives

on each side, one pcrsonality and six press and radio represcntatives

were permitted to remain. Both Governments were treated equally

and each representativc was informed that an identical letter was

being sent to the other. Both sides complied with the letter and

neither made any complaint.

88. The Government of the Republic of Cameroon alleges that

three days before the plebiscite 700 armed police were brought in

to the Trust Territory from Xigeria to persuade the population that

unless they voted for Xigeria they were liable to be arrested, perse-

cuted and forcibly removed. It is denied that a "considerable

number of Xigerians" were permitted to enter to "increase the

psychological action undertaken" or for any purpose \vhatsoever.

Sg. The allegation as to the entry of 700 police is denied and is

totally unfounded, as is clcar from paragraph 436 of Dr. Abdoh's

report. A total of 15 police were brought into the Territory diiring

January 1961 to bring the establishment up to the agreed figure

of 172 for the whole Northem Cameroons. No other police were

brought in at all.

go. In view of the reference to "troops", it should perhaps be

mentioned that at no time were any army personnel present in the

Northern Cameroons, with the exception of the detachment of

IOI signals officcrs and men supplied by the Nigerian army at the

express reqiiest of the United Nations Plebiscite Commissioncr for

purposes of radio communication during the voting and counting

periods.These units had been present in a similar capacity during

the 1959 plebiscite; they performed no other duties than those of

communications and carricd no arms. COUSTER-MEhIORIAL OF THE UNITED KISGDODI 81

c. IRREGULAR~TI ENSD LACKOFSAFEGUARDS IN

THE COSDUCT OF THE PLEBISCITE

(a) Presiding Officers at PoUing Stations.

gr. The allegations in respect of these officials are completely

refuted by reference to paragraph 574 of Ilr. Abdoh's report, which

reads as follows:

"A total of 760 Presiding and Pollingficerswere recruited from

within the Northern Cameroons, with the exception of twenty-five

studerits from the Numan Teacher Training College in Adamawa

Province of the Northern region of Nigeria. Of the latter, some

were residents of the Northern Cameroons. Althoug1 had requested

the Administrator in so far as possible to recruit staff fromg

qualified persons in the Northern Cameroons, 1raised no objection

to the employinent oftlies25students because these men's previous

experience and their knowledge of the difficultMambilla plateau

could most usefully be employed during the polling period. The

Presiding and Polling Officerswere recmited from among senior ar?d

junior primary-scl~ool teachers, mission-school teachers aiid pupils

who had completed standard IV or above. Training courses were

held at eacti of the Returning Officers'headquarters, lasting over

periods of fromeiglit to nine days. These courses wcre begun 28

January and lasted until 6 February. During the training courses,

these officialswere instructed in the construction of polling stations.

the mechanics of polling, and their duties conceming the delivery

of ballot boxes to the counting centres and were issued written

instmctions."

(b) The Secrecy of the Ballot.

92. The auegations as to intimidation by means of defective

polling booths and police influence are denied. The polling stations

were constmcted to a standard design; their construction made it

impossible for anyone to see inside the polling booths; no police

were anywhere permittcd inside the polling stations. At a great

majority of poUing stations there were no police prescnt nt all; in

one or two cases whcre police were uscd nt the polling stations, such

police were Native Authority Police (i.e. h'orthern Cameroonians)

and not Tmst Territory Police (Le. Nigerian Police on loan to the

Trust Temtory Administration and under the authority of the

Administrator). It must be recalled that in the entirc Territoryof

the Northern Cameroons the total number of police at the time of

the plebiscite was 391 (167 Nigerian Police hired for service in the

Northern Cameroons, 45 in the Native Authority Police training

unit and 179 other Native Authority Police; the latter224 were

Northern Cameroonians). It woulcl, therefore, have been qiiite

impossible for these to have exercised a significant influence on

378 polling stations, even if they had been present to doSO.

93. Furthermore, the "system of two polling stations" in no way

prejudiced the fair conduct of the ballot.82 SORTHERN CAblEROOSS

94. Thereasonsfor votingon two days in the Northem Cameroons

are set out in paragraphs 554 to 556 of Dr. Abdoh's report. In

paragraph 556, he wntes:

"In order to enahle the largest possible number of inhabitants,

particularly the recently enfranchized women, to participate in the

l'lebiscite, and wishiug to avoid the introduction of polling staff

from outside the Tmst Territory, 1agreed to the extension of the

polling period from one to two days, provided that the Plebiscite

Administrator could assure me concerning the safety of the ballot

boxes during the night separating the two pollingdays. The assur-

aPlebiscite Administrator designatedn12rFebmary 1961 to be an the

additional Pollingay."

(c) Lack of Minutes of the Polling.

95. In respect of the allegation that the niles for the plebiscite

did not provide for minutes of proceedings in which grievances

could be entered, the Plebiscite Regulations, approved by the

United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner, were suhstantially similar

to tliose for the Sonthern Cameroons plebiscite and had been

studied by him together with the latter, with a view to obtaining

the largest possible degree of uniformity (para. j39 of his report).

Provision was made in them for complaints about the conduct of

the voting to he made in the form of voting petitions. Not a single

voting petition in respect of the North was received under these

Regulations (para. 59s of Dr. Abdoh's report).

96. The allegation that some of the ballot boxes arrived sealed

and that voters were not called upon to note that they were empty

hefore voting began is denied. Under the Regulations al1 polling

boxes had to be shown empty and open to the polling agents ap-

pointecl by the two parties before voting hegan. NO complaints

were received by the Plebiscite Aclministrator that tliis rvas not

done.

(d) Alleged Intervention by Pro-Nigerians.

97. The allegation that there was an ovenvhelming majority of

Nigerians and representatives of pro-Nigerian parties appointed

as staff of the polling stations is denied. The method of selecting

the Presiding and Polling Officers has been already described

above. The vast majonty of them were Cameroonians and they

were chosen by the Plebiscite Administrator's staff mainly from

teachers and pupiIs, on grounds of their competence to do the work.

The other staff at the polling stations were polling marshals and

female searchers, who were al1Cameroonians.

98. The Government of the Re~ublic of Cameroon alleges that

press representatives of the Republic were refused the right to

speak to anyone, or even to go into the booths to venfy that both

the ballot boxes were there. COUXTER-AlEhlORIAL OF THE UXITED KIKGDOAI

83

99. In order to maintain the secrecy of the poli, no one except

PlebisciteOfficiaisand United Nations Observers, and the poiüng

agentsappointed by the parties, were dowed to go into the booths.

The press representatives of the Republic of Cameroon were in fact

active members of the campaign force of the parties who advocated

union with the Republic and it isunderstood that they were deputies

in the Parliament of the Republic. The United Nations Plebiscite

Commissioner writes in paragraph 512 of his report:

"However, 1 agreed to the Administrator's suggestion that each

of the two Governments concemed be invited to designate six press

representatives tocorneto the Territory to witness the polling and

counting of the ballots. Accordingly, invitations were sent by the

Administrator to both Govemments and, so far as 1 am informed,

the Republic of Cameroon sent one representative to each of the

areas in which a counting centre was located. The Govemment of

the Federation of Nigeria, forits part,imited itself to sending a

few cinecameramenand photographers to the Territory."

(e) Aüeged Incidents and Victimization.

roo. It is denied that the black ballot hoxes were positioned so

as to favour Nigeria. In paragraph 582 of his report, the United

Nations Plebiscite Commissioner describes the siting of the ballot

hoxes as foilows:

"During their course of training. polling staff were instructed in

the constmction of polling stations and each was provided with a

annaxis between the borders of the Republic of Cameroonand then

Federation of Nigeria and that theballot boxes were placedin the

respectivedirections.In this way, a total ofpollingstations were

erected in the 246 registration areas of the Northem Cameroons

in locations which had previously been sited by the Returning

Officers. The polling staff wasalso provided with al1 necessary

equipment called for in Regulation 7, before being sent to their

stations."

No complaints were made about this arrangement.

ror. The incident at Za was dealt with in accordance with the

plebiscite regulations and the facts are that a report was received

at Mubi that the Za polling stations had closed down in accordance

with the regulations owing to a disturbance having occurred.

It was understood that the I'residing Officer had allowed both

poiüng agents to go into the booth unaccompanied and there was

an altercation with regard to some ballot papers which had not

been placed in either box and this had led to a disturbance and the

poiiing station had been damaged. A superior Police Officer and

three Trust Terntory Police proceeded to the station during the

night which was over 18 miles from the road and he was accompanied

by a Polling Supervisory Officer with instructions to reopen the

poil on 12 Fehruary. In view of the fact that there was a dispute

7S4 SORTHERN CA3IEROOSS

whether certain ballot papers had or had not been properly placed

in a box, the poll at this station \vas started afresh and was com-

pleted on 13 February in accordance with the Regulations. This

was the only incident of the kind inal1the poiiing stations.

102. The aiiegation of intimidation and arrests and the throwiiig

of stones is denied. No more than one or two persons were nrrested

as a result of disturbancesduring the days of poiiing. Dr. Abdoh

observes in paragraph 586 of his report that poiling on both days

"proceeded in an exemplary manner and without major incidents".

(fi Allegations that the Cnstody of the Ballot Boxes and their

Closing Did not Offer Guarantees of Safety.

103. The aiiegation that the security arrangements for the ballot

boxes were inadequate is denied. In paragraph 588 of his report,

the United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner states that he is satis-

fied that the provisions for the security of the ballot boxes were

completely adequate. Although there was no provision for the

Polling Agents representing the parties to spend the night on

the premises where the boxes were kept, they were entitledtoaffix

their own scals to the boxes, and, as tlie Plebiscite Commissioner

says in paragraph 589 of his report, in some cases they did sleep

outside the buildings where the boxes were stored. The account

given of the demonstration of the sealing process in the presence

of the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the

Republic of Cameroon is inaccurate. The box mhirh waî success-

fdly opened by the Representative of the Cameroon Government

had not been properly tied and sealed, as he himself pointed out at

the time.

D. IRREGULARITIE ANSD LACK OF SAFEGUARD IN THE

COUNTIKG OF VOTES

(a) Transport and Supervision of Ballot Boxes.

104. The couuting of votes was completed in three days, which

penod was shorter than anticipated in al1 the circumstances. In

the Southern Cameroons, about which no complaint is made,

counting took four days.

105. The description in the Jlemorial of the manner in which

ballot boxes were collected and numbered is inaccurate. The

arrangements are described in Dr. Abdoh's report as foilows:

"..Only the Returning Officersand the United Nations observers

were in possessionof the codes and knew the number belonging to

a particular polling station. The Counting Agents, altliougli able at

al1times to satisfy,themselves of the accuracy of the count, could

not identify a particular polling station as such. During this proce-

dure the Counting Agents were located at a point close enough to

them to observe the coding operation by the Returning Officer

and the United Nations Observer, but not closeenough to be able COUSTER-IIEJIORIA OF THE UNITED KISGDO~I 85

to identify the code number with its polling station. Once the fore-

going operation was completed, the opening of ballot boxes, the

countingand al1other procedureswerefullywitnessedby the Count-

ing Agent" (para. 589: sce also para. 590).

(b) Counting.

106. The inferences suggested by reference to the natio~iality

of the poiüng officers are not admitted. If, however, the Poiiing

Officers or any of them had a predilection for union with Nigeria,

this in no way affectedtheir conduct of the counting operations.

Dr. Abdoh describes the choice of counting officersin paragraph 576

of his report as foUows:

"...those selected for this important function had for obvious

reasons to be selected from amongst non-Carneroonians. Also ex-

cluded by commonconsent were those officialswho were primarily

charged with the administration of the Territory. In the circum-

stances, the field of choice wasnarrowed to technical or contract

officersand their wives. In some instances priests and missionary

staff were selected to serve. At one counting centre, forsample,

the counting officers included a priest of the Roman Catliolic

Church, a n~irsingsister, two professional engineersand a doctor of.

medicine."

It may be noted that the same arrangements were made for the

selection of counting officers in the Southern Cameroons plebiscite.

107. For reasons of secrecy it was considered necessary that the

representatives of the parties should not be able to determine the

number of votes cast for their party at each polling station. How-

ever, the Counting Agents appointed hy the parties were able at

al1 times to satisfy tliemselvcs of the accuracy of the count, and

al1allegations to the contrary are denied.

(c) The Proclamation of the Results.

108. The United Kingdom repeats and relies on the facts set out

above to controvert the inferences sought to be drawn from the

method of publication of the results of the plebiscite.

109. The British Government thus submit that the allegations

in respect of the plebiscite are misconceived.

First,they are frequently based on facts which in the United

Kingdom submission are untrue.

Secondly, the inferences drawn from those facts which are ad-

mitted are not truly derived thcrefrom, and the inferences and

justifications raised by the United Kingdom present a fair descrip-

tion of the plebiscite.86 XORTHERN CAMEROOSS

110. The United Kingdom subrnits that the conduct of the plebis-

cite is most fairly summarized in Dr. Abdoh's report at para-

graphs 599 to 605.

III. In submitting that the conclusions sought to be drawn by

the Kepublic of Cameroon are incorrect, the British Government

rely on the conclusion of Dr. Abdoh in paragrapbs 601 and 602

of his report which include the foilowing passages:

"..although the majonty of the people of the Northem Camer-

oonsmay not have grasped the intricate and complex constitutional

implications of the two alternatives, they were aware, nevertheless,

that the decision they were called upon to make at the plebiscite

meant joining one or other of the two neighbouring countries ...

The plebiscite was efficiently organized and conducted by the

Administering Authonty in accordance with the legislation pro-

mulgated for the purpose. In spite of the defects and weaknesses

inherent in the situation prevailing in the Northem Cameroons,

1 am satisfied that the people had the opportunity to express their

wishes freely and secretly at the polls conceming the alternatives

offeredin the plebiscite."

PART IV

Conclusions

112. The British Govemment submit that the Court should hold

and declare-

(i)jthat, for the reasons stated in Part 1 of this Counter-Memorial,

the Court has no jurisdiction in this case;

(ii) that, if, contrary to the submission of the British Government,

the Court holds that it has jurisdiction, for the reaçons stated

in Parts II and III of this Counter-Rlemorial, the allegations

made by the Republic of Cameroon of breach of the obligations

of the United Kingdom nnder the Trusteeship Agreement are

without foundation.

(Signed)

Francis VALLAT,

Agent of the Govemment of the

United Kingdom ANNEXES TO THE COUNTER-.\lEhlORIAL 87

Annexes to the Counter-Memorial

Annex 1

Trusteeship Agreement for the Territory of the Cameroons under

United Kingdom Administration

(As Approved by theGeneralAssemblyof the United Nations

at New York on 13 December1946)

WHEREAS the Territory known as Cameroons under British JIandate

and hereinafter referred to as the Territory has been administered in

accordance with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations

under a Mandate conferred on His Britannic Majesty; and

Whereas Article 75 of the United Nations Charter signed at San

Francisco on 26 June 1945 provides for the establishment of an inter-

national trusteeship system for the administration and supervision of

such territories as may be placed thereunder by subsequent individual

agreements; and

Whereas under Article 77 of the said Charter the international trustee-

ship system may be applied to territories now held nnder Mandate; and

IVhereas His Majesty has indicated his desire to place the Territory

under the said international trusteeship system; and

. .

Wbereas, in accordance with Articles 75 and 77 of the said Chartef.

the placing of a territory under the international trusteeship syst1s

to be effected by means of a Trusteeship Agreement;

Now therefore the General Assembly of the United Nations hereby

resolves to approve the following terms of trusteeship for the Territory.

ARTICLE I

The Territory to which this Agreement applies comprises that part of

the Cameroons lying to the west of the boundary defined by the Franco-

British Declaration of IO July 1919,and more exactly defined in the

declaration made by the Govemor of the Colony and Protectorate of

Nigeria and the Governor of the Carneroons under French Mandate

Government in the United Kingdom and the French Government ofsty s

9 January 1931. This line may, however, he slightly modified hy mutual

agreement between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom

and the Government of the French Repuhlic where an examination of

the localities shows thatit is desirable in the interests of the inhabitants.

ARTICLE 2

His Majesty is hereby designated as Administenng Authofity for the

Temtory, the responsihility for the administration of which will be

undertaken by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Nortbem Ireland.88 PIORTHERX CAMEROOPIS

The Administering Authority undertakes to administer the Territory

in such a manner as to achieve the basic objectives of the international

trusteeship system laid dowii in Article6of the United Nations Charter.

The Administering Authority further undertakes to coilaborate fully

with the General Assemblv of the United Nations and the truste es hi^

Council in the discharge of al1 their functions as defined in Article8j

of the United Xations Charter. and to facilitate anv periodic visits to

the Territory which they inay deem necessary, at &mes to be agreed

upon with the Administering Authority.

The Administering Authority shall be responsible (a) for the peace,

order, good government and defenceofthe Territory, and(b) for ensuring

that it shall play its part in the maintenance of international peace

aiid security.

ARTICLE5

For the above-mentioned purposcs and for al1purposes of this Agrce-

ment, as may be necessary, the Administering Authority:

(a) shall have full powers of legislation, administration and jurisdiction

in the Territorv and shall administer it in accordance with his own

laws as an intégral part of Iiis territory with such modification as

may be required by local conditions aiid subject to the provisions

of the United Xations Charter and of this Agreement;

IbJ sliall be entitled to constitute the Temtorv into a customs, fiscal

. , or administrative union or federatiou !ith adjacent territories

under Iiis sovercigntv or control, and to establish common services

hetween such territbries and the Territory where such measures

are not inconsistent with the basic objectives of the international

trusteeship system and with the terms of this Agreement;

(c) and shall be entitled to establish naval, military and air bases. to

erect fortifications. to station and employ his own forces in the

Territory and to take al1sucb other measures as are in his opinion

necessary for the defence of the Temtory and for ensuring that it

plays its part in the maintenance of international peace and security.

To thisend the Administering Authority may make use of volunteer

forces, facilities and assistance from the Territory in carrying out

the obligations towards the Security Council undertaken in tliis

regard by the Admitlistering Authority. as well as for local defence

and the maintenance of law and order within the Territory.

The Administering Authority shall promote the development of free

political institutions suited to the Temtory. To this end the Admin-

istering Authority shall assure to the inhabitants of the Territory a

progressively increasing share in the administrative and other services

of the Territory; shall develop the participation of the inhabitants of

the Territory in advisory and legislative bodies and in the government

of the Territory, both central and local, as may he appropriate to the AXNEXES TO THE COUXTER-3IElIORIAL 89

particular circumstances of the Territory and its people; and sliall take

aü other appropriate ineasures witli a view to the political advancement

of the inhabitants of the Territory in accordance with Article 76 (b)

of the United Nations Charter. In considering the measures to be taken

under this Article the Administering Authority shall. in the interests

of the inhabitants, have special regard to the provisions of Article (a)

of this Agreement.

The Administering Authority undertakes to apply in the Territory

the provisions of any international conventions and recommendations

already existing or hereafter drawn up by the United Nations or by

the specialized agencies referred to in Article 57 of the Charter, which

may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of the Territory

and which would conduce to the achievement of the basic objectives

of the international trusteeship system.

In framing laws relating to the holding or transfer of land and natural

resources, the Administering Authority shall take into consideration

native laws and customs, and shall respect the rights and safeguard

the interests, both present and future, of the native population. No

native land or natural resources inay be transferred except between

natives, save with the previous consent of the competent public author-

ity. No real rights over native land or natural resources in favour of

non-natives may be created escept with the same consent.

Subject to the provisions of ArticleIO of this Agreement, the Admin-

istering Authority shall take al1 necessary steps to ensure equal treat-

ment in social. economic, industrial and commercial matters for all

hfembers of the United Nations and their nationals and to this end:

In1 shall ensure the same riehts to al1 nationals of Members of the

. , United Nations as to hisown nationals in respect of entry into and

residence in the Territorv. freedom of transit and navigation,

including freedom of traniit and navigation by air, acquisition of

property both movnble and immovable, the protection of persons

and property, and the exercise of professions and trades;

(b) of any illember of the United Nations in matters relating t0 thels

grant of concessions for the development of the natural resources

of the Territory, and shall not grant concessions having the charac-

ter ofa general monopoly;

(c) iintiona1.iof al1>leinbers of rlic Unircd S;itiori~.tion of justice t0 the

The rights conferred by this Article on nationals of Members of the

United Nations apply equally to companies and associations controlled

bv such ~iationals and organized in accordance with the law of any

bfember of the United Nations.90 NORTHERN CAMEROOSS

ARTICLE 10

Measures taken to give effect to Article g of this Agreement shaii be

subject always to the overriding duty of the Administering Authority

in accordance with Article 76 of the United Nations Charter to promote

the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the

inhabitants of the Territory, to carry out the other basic objectives

of the international trusteeship system, and to maintain peace, order

and good government. The Administering Authority shall in particular

be free-

(a) to organize essential public services and works on such terms and

conditions as he thinks just;

(b) to create monopolies of a purely fiscal character in order to provide

the Territory with the fiscal resources which seem best suited to

local requirements, or otherwise to serve the interests of theinhab-

itants of the Territory;

(c) wtaiits of the Territory may require it, to establish or permit to

be estahlished, for specific purposes, other monopolies or nnder-

takings having in them an element of mouopoly, under conditions

of proper public control; provided that, in the selection of agencies

to carry out the pnrposes of this paragraph, other thari agencies

controlled by the Government or those in which the Government

participates, the Administering Authonty shall not discriminate

on grounds of nationality against Members of the United Nations

or their nationals.

ARTICLE II

Nothing in this Agreement shall entitle any Memher of the United

Nations to claim for itself or for its nationals, companics and asso-

ciations, the benefits of Article g of this Agreement in any respect in

which it does not give to the inhabitants, companies and associations

of the Territory equality of treatment with the nationals, companies

and associations of the State which it treats most favourably.

The Administering Authonty shall, as may be appropriate to the

circumstances of the Territory, continue and extend a general system of

elementary education designed to aholish illiteracy and to facilitate the

vocational and cultural advancement of the population, child and adult,

and shall similarly provide such facilities as may prove desirable and

practicable in the interests of the inhabitants for qualified students to

receive secondary and higher education, including professional training.

The Administering Authority shall ensure in the Territory complete

freedom of conscience and, so far as is consistent with the requirements

of public order and morality, freedom of religions teaching and the free

exercise of al1 forms of worship. Subject to the provisions of Article 8

of this Agreement and the local law, missionaries who are nationals of AXNEXES TO THE COUNTER->IE>lORIAL 9'

lllembers of the United Nations shall be free to enter the Territory and

to travel and reside therein, to acquire and possess property, to erect

religious buildings and to open schools and hospitals in the Territory.

The provisions of this Article shaU not, however, affect the right and

duty of the Administering Authority to exercise sucli control as he may

consider necessary for the maintenance of peace, order and good govern-

ment and for the educational advancement of the inhabitants of the

Territory, and to take ail measuresreqnired for such control.

Subject only to the requirements of public order, the Administering

Authority shall guarantee to the inhabitants of the Territory freedom

of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of petition.

The Administering Authority may arrange forthe CO-operationof the

Territory in any regional advisory commission, regional technical organ-

ization. or other voluntarv association of State.. a<. sueciaiized inter-

national bodies, public or Private, or other forms of international activity

not inconsistent with the United Nations Charter.

ARTICLE16

The Administering Authority shall make to the General Assembly

of the United Nations an annual report on the basis of a questionnaire

drawn up by the Trusteeship Council in accordance with Article 88 of

the United Nations Charter. Such reports shall include information

conceming the measures taken to give effect to suggestions and Tecorn-

mendations of the General Assemhly and the Tnisteeship Cou~icil.The

Administering Authority shall designate an accredited representative

to be present at the sessions of the Tnisteeship Council at which the

reports of the Administering Authority with regard to the Temtory

are considered.

ARTICLE 17

Nothing in this Agreement shall affect the right of the Administering

Authority to propose, at any future date, the amendment of this Agree-

ment for the purpose of designating the whole or part of the Territory

as a strategic area or for any other purpose not inconsistent with the

basic objectives of the international trusteeship system.

The terms of this Agreement shall not be altered or amended except

as provided in Article 79 and Articles 83 or 85, as the case may be. of

the United Nations Charter.

ARTICLE 19

If any dispute whatever should arise between the Administering

Authority and another Member of the United Nations relating to the

interpretation or application of the provisions of this Agreement,suchg2 SORTHERS CAhlEROOiVS

dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation or other means, shali be

submitted to the International Court of Justice provided for in Chapter

XIV of the United Nations Charter.

Annex Il

The Geographic, Ethnic and Historical Background

This Annex sets out briefly the geographic, ethnic and historical

background of the territory which comprised the Cameroons under

British administration. The form which that administration took and

the way in which the temtory developed can only be understood against

this background.

A. GEOGRAPHIB CACKGROUND

I.The territory which comprised the Cameroons under British man-

date and trusteeship was a strip of predominantly mountainous country

ou the eastern frontier of Nigeria,stretcliing inland for some 700 miles

from the Atlantic Ocean to Lake Chad with an average width of 50

miles, brokcn in the north by a gap of some 45 miles which contains

the valley of the River Benue and in which the territory of Nigeria

and of the Cameroons formerly under French trusteeship meet. The

area of the territory is shown on the map attached as Annex VI '.The

eastern part of Nigeria consists of ail extensive low-lying plain rising

in the east to the great elevated plateau which extends to the north-

west from the Congo Basin and of which the Cameroons which was

administered by the United Kingdom is tlie north-western ridge.

z.Geographically, the territory falls naturally into several areas (a

physical map ofthe territory is attnched as An