change on the French maps is in favour of Nigeria. The Institut Géographique National has stated (8) that the identification of some of the boundary markers was in doubt, and that such markers would have been re-established after enquiry of the administrative authorities and the local inhabitants; this procedure, strictly in contravention of paragraph 5 of Article I of the 1910 Agreement, led to some adjustment of the original 'straight-line' boundary. However, I.G.N. has admitted that it holds no official documents justifying or detailing such changes, (8) and (9). Moreover, the Chief Surveyor of the Nigerian Federal Survey Department has confirmed (10) that there has been no joint attempt by Nigeria and Niger to review or re-establish the boundary markers, and that there is no agreement to the changes shown on the French and American maps. These changes cannot therefore be considered to have any legal validity.
It is interesting, since the French 1:200,000 maps show the boundary turning points by symbol and beacon number, and since I.G.N. believes that its surveyors in the fieldwork of 1954-62 located most of the markers (8), to see that Prescott (in item 7 of the Bibliography) asserted in 1961 that "it has not proved possible to locate any of the original monuments". Although the boundary may be considered as demarcated therefore, there is some doubt as to how many boundary markers actually exist and as to their condition.
Prescott states that "Since the demarcation there have been no major boundary problems". Anene, (in Bibliography, item 9, p. 295) confirms this statement when he says, of all Nigeria's boundaries, "up to the moment no serious boundary question has been raised in Nigeria or by Nigeria's neighbours". The changes mentioned above are clearly of a relatively minor nature.
-3-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.