Executive-Legislative Relations in Nigeria’s Management of the Border Crisis between Nigeria and Cameroon: The Case of the ICJ Ruling on the Bakassi Peninsula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines Executive-Legislative relations in Nigeria’s management of the border crisis between Nigeria and Cameroon with special focus on the ICJ ruling on the Bakassi Peninsula. Using both primary and secondary data, the paper traced the root cause of the border dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon on the Bakassi Pennisula to colonial legacy of arbitrary boundary demarcation by erstwhile colonial powers, namely; Britain, Germany and France. The border crisis resulted in a protracted litigation and eventually culminated in the ICJ ruling which awarded the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon in 2002. The executive and the National Assembly which share constitutional responsibilities in external relations could not forge a common policy agenda on the matter. In many instance, both arms of government appeared confused and bereft of ideas to handle situation. The lack of consistent and coherent policy framework on the matter stemmed from inexperience and lack of political will on the part of the National Assembly as well as frequent conflict and mistrust between the two arms of government. Consequently, the Executive arm of government handed over the disputed territory to Cameroon without the approval of the National Assembly. The paper concludes that the Executive and the Legislature in Nigeria should see their roles in government as complimentary and always put national interest above other considerations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".