From William Yaw Owusu , Hamburg - Germany
Monday,
September 25, 2017
Ghana
has won the case in which Cote d’Ivoire was seeking
compensation whilst laying claim to portions of huge oil and gas reserves
located around the maritime boundary between the two countries in the Western
Region.
The
five-member panel of eminent judges at the International Tribunal for the Law
of the Sea (ITLOS) based in Hamburg, Germany was unanimous last Saturday in its
judgement in respect of the dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime
boundary in the Atlantic Ocean.
The
decision of the Special Chamber of the ITLOS is expected to bring an end to any
dispute over the maritime boundary between the two countries since the judgment
is deemed final.
Attorney
General Gloria Afua Akuffo, who led Ghana’s legal team, introduced the members.
They
included her Deputy, Godfred Yeboah Dame; Solicitor-General, Helen Awo Dziwu;
Professor Phillipe Sands who is Ghana’s lead International Lawyer and Fui
Tsikata, among other top lawyers.
Final Boundary
The
Special Chamber ruled that to delimit the new maritime boundary, it would use a
new Land Boundary Terminus (LBT) that it had set at BP55plus, thus rejecting
the different LBTs (geographical coordinates of BP55 in the case of Ghana and
168 degrees azimuth line in the case of Cote d’Ivoire), put forward by the two
countries respectively in the course of the trial.
In
effect, the court has generated a new base point with which to draw the final
boundary, which it said is an Equidistance Line Boundary covering the
Territorial Sea - the Exclusive Economic Zone in the area beyond 200 nautical miles
- and experts have said it looks good for Ghana as far as exploration of oil
and gas resources are concerned.
Per the
judgement, Cote d’Ivoire has lost almost every claim against Ghana, except the
order by the Special Tribunal for the two countries to re-demarcate the
maritime boundary; but will be of no significance as far as the huge claims put
forward by Ghana’s neighbour is concerned.
“The new
and final maritime boundary line protects Ghana’s existing concessions,” an
unnamed source told DAILY GUIDE immediately after the judgement, adding, “It
protects all areas belonging to Ghana which go up to the 200 nautical miles
limit in the area beyond 200 nautical miles up to 350 nautical miles.”
Tacit Agreement
Ghana
appeared to have lost the argument of Tacit Agreement moved against Cote
d’Ivoire, which it said confirmed the full scope of over 50 years of joint
activities between the two countries regarding the maritime boundary.
Although
Ghana lost that argument, it turned out that it was the display of the maps
brought by Ghana that largely aided the Special Tribunal to come to the
conclusion that the maritime boundary line should be drawn using the BP55plus
coordinate.
Cote
d’Ivoire, in its quest to get the maritime boundary re-demarcated, appeared to
convince the court that Jomoro in the Jomoro District of the Western Region, is
an island or a kind of a peninsula, but the court dismissed the claim saying
the Ivoirians themselves had always recognized the fact that Jomoro has been
Ghana’s bonafide territory.
Consequential Orders
The
Special Tribunal summed up the whole judgement in seven key points and in all
of them it was unanimous in dismissing the case brought by Cote d’Ivoire.
It
unanimously found that it has jurisdiction to delimit the maritime boundary
between the parties in the territorial sea, in the exclusive economic zone and
on the continental shelf - both within and beyond 200 nm.
The
tribunal also unanimously found that there is no tacit agreement between the
parties to delimit their territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and
continental shelf both within and beyond 200 nm, and rejected Ghana’s claim
that Côte d’Ivoire was estopped from objecting to the customary equidistance
boundary.
The
tribunal further unanimously decided that “the single maritime boundary for the
territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf within
and beyond 200 nm start at BP55+ with the coordinates 05° 05’ 23.2” N; 03° 06’
21.2’’ W in WGS 84 as a geodetic datum.”
It said
that the geodetic datum should be defined “by turning points A, B, C, D, E, F
with the following coordinates and connected by geodetic lines: A: 05° 01’ 03.7”
N 03° 07’ 18.3” W, B: 04°
57’ 58.9” N 03° 08’ 01.4” W, C: 04° 26’
41.6” N 03° 14’ 56.9” W, D: 03° 12’
13.4” N 03° 29’ 54.3” W, E: 02° 59’
04.8” N 03° 32’ 40.2” W as well as F: 02° 40’ 36.4” N 03° 36’ 36.4” W.”
It held
that “from turning point F, the single maritime boundary continues as a
geodetic line starting at an azimuth of 191° 38’ 06.7’’ until it reaches the
outer limits of the continental shelf.
International Responsibility
The
court unanimously found that it has jurisdiction to decide on the claim of Côte
d’Ivoire against Ghana on the alleged international responsibility of Ghana and
unanimously found that Ghana did not violate the sovereign rights of Côte
d’Ivoire.
The
tribunal “unanimously, finds that Ghana did not violate Article 83, paragraphs
1 and 3, of the Convention,” adding it “unanimously finds that Ghana did not
violate the provisional measures prescribed by the Special Chamber in its Order
of 25 April 2015.”
Ghana’s Submission
It was
Ghana’s submission that the two countries had mutually recognised, agreed, and
applied an equidistance-based maritime boundary in the territorial sea, EEZ and
continental shelf within 200 M and that the maritime boundary in the
continental shelf beyond 200 M followed an extended equidistance boundary along
the same azimuth as the boundary within 200 M, to the limit of national
jurisdiction.
Ghana
insisted that in accordance with international law, by reason of its
representations and upon which Ghana has placed reliance, Côte d’Ivoire was
estopped from objecting to the agreed maritime boundary and that the land
boundary terminus and starting point for the agreed maritime boundary is at
Boundary Pillar 55BP 55.
Cote d’Ivoire’s Submission
In its
final submission, Côte d’Ivoire requested the Special Chamber to reject all
Ghana’s requests and wanted a declaration that the sole maritime boundary
between the two neighbours followed the 168.7º azimuth line, which it said,
starts at boundary post 55 and extends to the outer limit of the Ivorian continental
shelf.
It
sought a further adjudication that the activities undertaken unilaterally by
Ghana in the Ivorian maritime area constituted a violation of the exclusive
sovereign rights of Côte d’Ivoire over its continental shelf, as delimited by
the Chamber, as well as the obligation to negotiate in good faith, pursuant to Article
83, paragraph 1, of UNCLOS and customary law.
Cote
d’Ivoire had insisted that Ghana did not respect the obligation not to
jeopardize or hamper the conclusion of an agreement, as provided for by Article
83, paragraph 3, of UNCLOS and had wanted a declaration that Ghana violated the
provisional measures prescribed by the Chamber per its Order of 25 April, 2015.
They
also wanted the Special Tribunal to invite the parties to carry out
negotiations in order to reach agreement on the terms of the reparation due to
Côte d’Ivoire.
Case Chronology
The
dispute was submitted to a special chamber formed in application of Article 15,
paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal by way of a special agreement
concluded between the two states concerned on 3 December, 2014 and on 25 April, 2015. The Special Chamber
delivered its Order on a request for the prescription of provisional measures
filed by Côte d’Ivoire.
Further
to the closure of the written proceedings, hearings on the merits of the case
took place from 6 to 16 February, 2017.
Case History
When
Ghana discovered oil in commercial quantities in 2007, Cote d’Ivoire said Ghana
was straying into its waters in the course of the exploration exercise in the
West Cape Three Points.
Cote
d’Ivoire came again with a renewed set of claims in 2010, including
compensation from Ghana for entering into its territory when the Dzata-1
Deepwater Well was discovered by Vanco.
Ghana
then constituted the Ghana Boundary Commission sometime in March 2010 after
Cote d’Ivoire had petitioned the United Nations over the oil exploratory
activities and requested for a demarcation of the maritime boundary.
After
about 10 high-level negotiations between Ghana and Code d’Ivoire had yielded no
dividends, Ghana filed a petition before ITLOS in 2014, asking the special
tribunal to look into the matter and bring finality to the case.
Cote
d’Ivoire responded, adding a counter-claim, including the payment of reparations
from Ghana and appealed to the special tribunal to suspend all activities on
the disputed area until the final determination of the case.
The
first ruling given by ITLOS was in 2015 when it placed a moratorium on new
projects that were being undertaken by Ghana, but said the old projects could
continue.
The
moratorium prevented Tullow Oil from drilling additional 13 wells. Tullow, thus,
drilled 11 wells in Ghana’s first oil field.
No comments:
Post a Comment