The ICJ will deliver its Judgment on the Somali-Kenya maritime dispute

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, maakhiri1 said:

Enough time for spoilers and looters do a damage. 

Somalis  must stay vigilant till then 

Kenya won't accept the decision, but let us hope there are no qaswadayaal on our side.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenya: Alert as Kenya Awaits Hostile Ruling in Somalia Border Row

By Alex Ndegwa

Kenya is on high alert ahead of next month's judgment on the Indian Ocean boundary dispute with Somalia, which is expected within government circles to be adverse.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will announce the decision on October 12, ending a protracted case between the two neighbours that the war-torn Horn of Africa nation filed in 2014.

Its verdict is final. The timing of the judgment - it coincides with the 10th anniversary of Kenyan troops storming Somalia to fight the al-Shabaab terrorists - is also being considered a "slap in the face".

The Nation has learnt Kenya will not accept a hostile ruling and a decision has been taken within the highest level of government to defy the court.


Some of the court's verdicts have in the past been disregarded, including by the US, which in 2018 rejected the court's order that sanctions against Iran should not include humanitarian aid or civil aviation safety.

And in 1986, the US had also attacked the court after it ruled America owed Nicaragua war reparations.

Kenya has also vowed not to accept what it considers "an illegitimate process" by an international entity.

"We are proceeding on the assumption that the verdict will be adverse. The manner in which the court conducted itself when dealing with Kenya, including rejecting a string of merited applications, is a key pointer," a senior Kenyan official told Nation yesterday.

The official went on: "A lot is being done, including security-wise. It's a matter with huge national security implications. A nation must guarantee the security and wellbeing of its people."

According to the official, even what would be considered a compromise by the court would involve surrender of a part of the territory, which is unacceptable to Kenya.

Treated unfairly:

Kenya contends the court treated it unfairly by rejecting a string of merited applications, including one asking that judge Ahmed Yusuf, a Somali, should step down over conflict of interest.

Justice Yusuf had been at the helm of the court since 2018 and was replaced as president of the ICJ in February by judge Joan Donoghue from the United States.

Kenya has also alleged some world powers with interests in vast minerals within the contested area have been meddling with the case to ensure Somalia, which attempted to sell some oil blocks at an international auction in London, UK, takes over the area.

Nairobi boycotted the ICJ's public hearings, leaving Somalia to argue its case in one-sided proceedings that closed in March in The Hague.


Judge Donoghue then announced that even without Kenya's participation, the court would rely on previous documents filed by Kenya, which accuses the world court of bias.

Before Kenya notified the court of its withdrawal from the case on March 11, it had applied to be allowed to submit new evidence that has been "missing" and is "highly relevant".

"Most particularly, the Republic of Somalia ("Somalia"), while asserting that its 1988 Maritime Law's reference to a 'straight line' refers to an equidistance line, conveniently failed to produce the map included in the law," Kenya stated in court papers filed in February.

"This Somali map, which the court should reasonably expect Somalia to produce, is critical since it has the potential of undermining Somalia's entire claim ... Whatever Somalia's missing map depicts is categorically not an equidistant line."

Kenya argued that any consideration of the equidistant claim would set a dangerous precedent as it would not only reward Somalia's belligerent conduct but also had the potential of disturbing already established boundaries, triggering disputes including with neighbouring Tanzania that could escalate to South Africa.

The dispute:

As adjacent coastal states facing the Indian Ocean to the east-south east, the maritime claims of Somalia and Kenya overlap, including in the area beyond 200 nautical miles.

The parties disagree about the location of the boundary in the area where their maritime entitlements overlap, according to court records.

Somalia, which filed the case in 2014, argues the maritime boundary between the parties in the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf should be determined in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) Articles 15, 74 and 83, respectively.

Article 15 of Unclos states: "Where the coasts of two states are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two states is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two states is measured."

But there is a rider. "The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two states in a way which is at variance therewith."

Article 74 states: "The delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between states with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution."

The same provision applies under Article 83 with respect to the delimitation of the continental shelf.

In both instances, the Articles provide where there is an agreement in force between the states concerned, questions relating to the delimitation of both the EEZ and continental shelf shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of that agreement.

Equidistance principle:

Somalia's argument is based on the use of the equidistance principle as the method of determining states' maritime boundaries.

Accordingly, Somalia argues, in the territorial sea, the boundary should be a median line since there are no special circumstances that would justify departure from such a line.

With regard to the EEZ and continental shelf, Somalia contends, the boundary should be established according to the three step process that the court has consistently employed in its application of Articles 74 and 83.

But Kenya's case is that a boundary along the parallel of latitude has developed through the consent of Somalia since 1979.

Since Somalia never protested for that long, Kenya contends that a boundary was established by a tacit agreement between the two states.

Straight line:

Accordingly, Kenya's position on the maritime boundary is that it should be a straight line emanating from the states' land boundary terminus, and extending due east along the parallel of latitude on which the land boundary terminus sits, through the full extent of the territorial sea, EEZ and continental shelf, including the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.

Kenya measures the breadth of its territorial sea and EEZ from a series of straight baselines covering the full length of its coast.

These baselines were first declared in the 1972 Territorial Waters Act and have been amended from time to time.

Kenya's submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) is that the outer limit of its continental shelf lies fully 350m from its coast.

Kenya asserts that all its activities including naval patrols, fishery, marine and scientific research as well as oil and gas exploration are within the maritime boundary established by Kenya and respected by both parties since 1979.

However, in 2014, shortly before filing its case with the ICJ, Somalia claimed a maritime boundary along an equidistance line, ignoring the 35-year recognition of the maritime boundary along a parallel of latitude.

Court decision:

The court will determine, on the basis of international law, the complete course of the single maritime boundary dividing all the maritime areas appertaining to Somalia and to Kenya in the Indian Ocean, including in the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.

Also, the ICJ judges will determine the precise geographical coordinates of the single maritime boundary in the Indian Ocean.


Kenya is on high alert ahead of next month's judgment on the Indian Ocean boundary dispute with Somalia, which is expected within government circles to be adverse.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Xaaji Xunjuf said:

Everything should be considered even war with Kenya

 Xaaji Xanjuf , 

Saaxiib what is going on? Last time I checked  "Jamuuriyada Barakaysani" was asking Somalia to leave the good Kenyans  alone.  are you messing with Che and all of us here?

One of the great Somali composers  Cali Geelle (Cali Gaab ) said in 1973:

Bishimaha dusheediyo

been weeye nabaduye

Baaruuda qaraxdiyo

Bunduq weeye Dunidiyo.

The era of human right, sovereignty of the state borders and rule of law are on weak legs these days. All we need is the legitimacy of the IC . Somalia needs to call up all those young Somali pirates from Eyl, Xaradheer, Bari and Shabeelaha hoose and give them high speed boats. They could easily secure the Somali coast with minimum cost.





Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as i am a Somalilander and support it . I dont like somalia to get hurt . I  am old enough  to remember that some how we  were great back in the days and we need to support each  other in these difficult  times Mr  galbeedi


  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Abdira
      Join the Somalia Discord Server!
    • By Abdira
      Join the Somalia Discord Server!
      DISCORD.GG #1 Discord for Somalia and the people of Eastern Africa | 879 members  
    • By Sakata
      Maamulka Jubaland ayaa soo saaray go’aano amni oo lagu soo rogay magaalada Kismaayo laga billaabo caawa iyo illaa inta ay ka dhaceyso doorashada madaxweynaha Jubaland ee 22-ka bishan.
      Go’aannada ayaa waxaa ugu weyn in lagu dhowaaqay in laga bilaabo 6pm makhribnimo 20/08/2019 ilaa 23/08/2019 la xiray xudduudaha magaaladda Kismaayo ee cir, dhul iyo bad.
      Shir ay isugu yimaadeen guddiga amniga Dowlad Goboleedka Jubbaland ayaa sidoo kale lagu dhowaaqay in heegan la geliyey dhamaan qaybaha kala duwan ee ciidamadda Dowlad Goboleedka Jubbaland iyo kuwa xoogga dalka kuwooda ka howl gala magaaladda Kismaayo iyo nawaaxigeeda.
      Guddiga ayaa sidoo kale faray hay’adaha amniga Dowlad Goboleedka Jubbaland, ciidamadda AMISOM, maamuladda garoonka diyaaradaha Kismaayo, dekadda Kismaayo iyo baraha kantarooladda laga soo galo magaaladda Kismaayo inay xaqiijiyaan meel maridda go’aankaan
      My kikuyu brothers are ready to diffend there own"

    • By galbeedi
      I  am a man under huge tent, I have friends all over the place. I have connections with people  from Gedo, Togdheer and Sanaag, Boosaaso, Mudug,, Banadir , Bay and beyond. To find the pulse of the nation you must talk and sit with different people with ease.    This conversations reveals that the Somali people are divided beyond comprehension. There is huge division in Somaliland, in Sool and Sanaag; Galmudug and Hiiraan; all the way to Mogadishu and Jubba. So far the only two places which are immune with big cracks are South West region and Puntland. Although the Tukaraq issue and the next elections would affect  Puntland too.   I do believe that only revolutions and strong national government could preserve the overall interest of the Somali people around the country. If a national government want to debate every sub clan, it might take another 30 years to achieve a viable nation state.   In line of that apparent division, let us meet: The Man from Sool.   let me remind you that I was shocked as anyone to discover  how deep the division in Sool is. No wonder people are going back and forth from Buuhoodle to Garoowe and back again. Things are much different than five or even four years ago. So, in order to find out things from the horse's mouth, let us talk to this man from Sool. He is an educated local man who is well connected in his community throughout the years, in fact you could say that he is one of the leading members of that community if not the most prominent.   Galbeedi: Tell me about the war and Tukaraq.   Sool man: It is another game that will not benefit the Sool community.   Galbeedi: For the first time there is huge army from Puntland and the Sool people seem to be in coordinated effort to take back their land, isn't that the case?   Sool man: I do not think so.  Kooxna dhul bay doonaysa, kuwa kalena dad bay rabaan. Roughly means those from Puntland want the strength of the people of Sool, and those from Somaliland want our land to achieve their ultimate goal.   Galbeedi: Are you saying that all these military maneuvers and campaign from Puntland is nothing but a political game?   Sool man: The one in Hargeisa Ina Biixi want to cover his failure and stagnation and Gaas want an extension and to win the election.   Galbeedi: Put aside the Hargeisa group since we all know their intensions. Are you saying that Puntalnd doesn't want the recovery of Sool and Sanaag?   Sool man: Look, on clan geneology , we are equal to the Puntland community. We might be parallel of them in terms of education, business, and politics and they can't dominate us. I do believe that the Puntland leaders do not want a parallel Sool community that could challenge them on the Somali federal side. Cali Khaliif was an example. When he became prime minister, the first people to oppose him  were the Puntlanders. All they want is the number and strength of our people.    Galbeedi: The Sool man doesn't explain that then president C/laahi Yusuf was aiming the top job and didn't want someone else whether from Sool likr Cali Khliif or  Hassan Abshir from Nugaal to derail his ultimate goal.    I heard that this time around there is a political decision among Puntlanders to recover the Sool region and set up later a federal region run by the Sool community, do you doubt that plan?   Sool man: I do not think so. Few years ago we set up the SSC movement to liberate the land, and we organized a 10,000 strong men to face Somaliland, but it was Puntland under C/raxman Faroole who released and posted anti SSC documents throughout the region to discredit us?   Galbeedi: what did the document contained?   Sool man: It depicted the SSC as terrorist organizations in the region and implemented those memos in coordination with Somaliland. That is when we understood that the Punties will not allow a separate Sool Maamul.   Galbeedi: Are you saying that the faith of the Sool region rests with the separatists.   Sool man: No. As I said, one group want the land, the other want the people. Yet, those from Somaliland, their goal is clear . It took them 20 years to reach here , but their goal is clear. At the end Biixi will go back to Gamadhe and the status quo will continue. I do not expect Puntland to liberate Sool.   Galbeedi: so, what is your future expectations?   Sool man: I do not believe that Somliland will be able to separate or achieve that goal, but their intention is to keep all the these region in one entity in order to gain more donor aid and political negotiations with the south. If the separatists drop their illogical sepretation and start opening things , it could be different.   Galbeedi: what is Cali Khaliif  doing?   Sool man: he is challenging and opening the system from inside. Last week when he held the Khaatumo parliament in Sool a lot of the Habro and others were shocked. Without firing a bullet he is dismantling and challenging the system.   Galbeedi: How about Mogadishu?, is there any help. In my view , there was the usual money for Uganda and others I Belgium and nothing changes?       Sool man: it is true, yet according to the people who attended the Belgium summit, Farmaajo was accorded the highest level of reception given the top leaders of the world. Many people including Faysal and company could get close or get access for days. He was received as any leader and the EU seems to elevate Somalia. The problem is nothing will change in Mogadishu because the elite and those who reside in that region want to keep the status quo and keep profiting from the lawlessness.   The end.   Folks this discussion with the Sool man has shown how Somali tribes are fragment due to grievances, pride or antiphaty to their neighbors . Few years ago the sentiment of Khaatumo was almost universal,. Before my discussion with this gentleman, I have other Sool friends that I talk to almost twice or more a week and their view is totally diametrically opposed to this gentlemans view. They do believe that the liberation of Sool is  now or never.   This nations is fragmented. It needs a strong hand to unite without apologies.    
    • By Aroori
      Documents reveal Britain made secret deal to defend Kenya in case of invasion by Somalia
      Britain made a secret undertaking in 1967 to defend Kenya in case of an invasion by Somalia, declassified documents recently released from the Prime Minister’s office in London reveal.
      The deal, known as the “Bamburi Understanding”, was a reassurance following a non-committal statement made by Mr Duncan Sandys, the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, in 1964.
      Without making any concrete commitment, Mr Sandys had told Kenya’s new government that in case of an attack by Somalia, it was probable that Britain would intervene.
      Somalia, which was then considered to have one of the region’s most powerful armies equipped with sophisticated Soviet-made weapons, had threatened to annex the north eastern part of Kenya in pursuit of its Greater Somalia policy. President Jomo Kenyatta’s administration had since independence in 1963 been grappling with a secessionist conflict in the north east, known as the Shifta War, that was supported by Somalia. Indeed, Somali Prime minister Muhammad Egal had told British MPs in 1962 of the intention to unite all territories occupied by Somalis in Kenya and Ethiopia
      When Somalia’s aggressive action seemed likely to lead to an invasion of Kenya in 1966, President Kenyatta quickly dispatched Attorney-General Charles Njonjo and Agriculture Minister Bruce Mckenzie to London to pressure the British government to not only give reassurances of protecting Kenya but also provide more sophisticated equipment.
      According to the declassified documents, although the British government turned down the request for arms terming it “unrealistic”, Prime Minister Harold Wilson, in a private message to President Kenyatta, committed to consider protecting Kenya from Somalia’s aggression.
      This private message marked “secret” was what came to be known as the “Bamburi Understanding”.
      “If Kenya were the victim of outright aggression by Somalia, the British government would give the situation most urgent consideration. While the British government cannot in advance give the Kenya Government any assurance of automatic assistance, the possibility of Britain giving the Kenyans assistance in the event of organised and unprovoked armed attack by Somalia is not precluded,” the message read.
      Nine months after the “Bamburi Understanding”, a key diplomatic milestone was achieved when mediation spearheaded by Zambian President Kenneth Kaunda led to the signing of the Arusha Memorandum between Kenya and Somalia to end border hostilities.
      But the Somalia government, which had signed the Arusha Memorandum, was overthrown and replaced by a military junta led by General Siad Barre in 1969.
      This resulted in apprehension with senior Kenyan officials fearing that General Barre was more likely to revive and pursue the Greater Somalia ambitions actively.
      As if that was not enough, Kenya suffered another blow when the British Labour administration, which had made defence commitments through the “Bamburi Understanding,” was replaced by the Conservatives under Prime Minister Edward Heath in June 1970, creating further anxiety.
      This sudden turn of events forced President Kenyatta to send Mr Njonjo and Mr Mckenzie with a private letter seeking reaffirmation from the new British Prime Minister on maintaining the security understanding.
      “I have asked them (Mr Njonjo and Mr Mckenzie) to discuss with you what we now here call the Bamburi Understanding. I hope that you will kindly discuss this matter with my ministers who have my authority to do so. I am keen that the understanding should be continued with your government,” read the letter dated August 30, 1970 and signed by President Kenyatta.
      Mr Mckenzie, who was on sick leave in Britain, booked the appointment with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to deliver the letter to Number 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister’s residence in London.
      The appointment was confirmed for September 8, 1970 at 11 am.
      A BRIEF
      Four days before the meeting, a brief was forwarded to Prime Minister Heath by the FCO warning that President Kenyatta was going to be unhappy if Britain refused to carry on with the “Bamburi Understanding”. The brief argued that Kenyans were among the most moderate on the “Arms for South Africa” issue — in reference to Britain selling weapons to the Apartheid government despite widespread opposition from many African countries — making it crucial for the new British government not to antagonise them.
      In the brief that was written in the context of the Cold War between the Western and Eastern blocs, the Prime Minister was also advised to raise British concerns with the Kenyan emissaries about the Soviet Union’s attempts to penetrate East Africa. There was also to be the clincher that the former colonial masters were willing to co-operate on the defence problem so long as British soldiers were allowed continued access to Kenyan military facilities.
      Biographical notes annexed to the brief further give insights on how the British viewed the two Kenyan ministers.
      Mr Njonjo was described as one of the closest and friendliest ministers to the British High Commission in Nairobi. Although he lacked political will or the grassroots support to win the presidency, he was viewed as a leading architect in the Kenyatta succession.
      The Prime Minister’s office was also informed that Mr Njonjo loved to have mid-morning tea with hot milk but there should also be Indian tea with cold milk and Chinese tea with lemon.
      In their brief, the British officials, however, sneered that Mr Njonjo’s undoing in the Kenyan political context was that he was “obviously presenting a very Western image politically and personally even to the extent of a black jacket and striped trousers and a rose buttonhole daily”.
      On his part, Mr Mckenzie was described as a “dynamo of the Kenya Government machine” whose influence extended far beyond his Agriculture ministry. He was also described as a member of President Kenyatta’s inner circle who had gained the respect of the Kenyan European community with whom he previously had a difficult relationship.
      “But he always puts Kenya’s interest first. Tries to be genuinely non-aligned when it serves Kenya’s interests,” added the FCO brief.
      However, Kenya had a special request to make: It wanted Mr Njonjo’s presence in London and the existence of the “Bamburi Understanding” kept secret.
      Not even the Kenyan High Commissioner in London was supposed to know about the mission, according to a confidential letter from a Mr McClauney of the FCO to the Prime Minister’s office.
      Mr McClauney, however, advised that if Mr Njonjo’s visit leaked, a statement should be released that he had brought a personal message from President Kenyatta and that it was not the practice to disclose the contents of such messages. And if the media assumed that the subject of the meeting was selling arms to South Africa, then this assumption should be allowed to stand.
      The secrecy of the meeting was emphasised to Prime Minister Heath by the British Secretary of State: “While I understand that you wish in general for publicity to be given to your discussion with African and other Commonwealth leaders, we feel that in this case it would be right to respect the Kenyan request, in so far as we can do so without appearing disingenuous.”
      Arrangements were, therefore, made for Mr Njonjo and Mr Mckenzie to enter the British Prime Minister’s office through the Cabinet office instead of the main entrance to avoid public attention.
      During the meeting, the declassified documents indicate, Mr Mckenzie pointed out the importance of reaffirming the “Bamburi Understanding”. In return, the British forces would be free to continue using Nairobi Airport, the Mombasa port as well as military training facilities in Kenya. They also had great interest in retaining the British special forces who were training Kenya’s General Service Unit commandos and the Special Branch. The visiting ministers linked the work the British special forces were doing in Kenya to the security arrangement against Somali’s aggression.
      In response, the British Prime Minister said that in principle he saw nothing wrong in reaffirming the “Bamburi Understanding” but promised to have the issue fully considered and a reply sent to President Kenyatta.
      Prime Minister Heath also promised to consider the request to have the special forces remain in Kenya and pointed out his government did not wish to reduce the use of Kenyan military facilities by British troops. He, however, warned that British military resources were stretched at the time because of instability in Northern Ireland.
      But the discussions went beyond defence matters, according to the documents. Mr Njonjo and Mr Mckenzie also discussed development and diplomatic issues. For example, they said that while they appreciated Britain’s support, there were problems with the administration of the aid programme since conditions laid down by the previous Labour government were inflexible, projects were delayed and important payments also held up longer than necessary.
      Mr Mckenzie suggested it would be helpful if Kenya’s Finance minister Mwai Kibaki, who was at an International Monetary Fund meeting in Copenhagen, passed through London to meet the British minister for Overseas Development.
      The two also felt that Kenya no longer enjoyed close contacts with British government officials and urged Prime Minister Heath to ask one of his junior ministers to take a special interest in Africa and get to know the continent’s leaders personally.
      Following the meeting, British officials embarked on drafting the Prime Minister’s reply. But they also secretly noted Mr Mckenzie’s and Mr Njonjo’s ignorance on the “Bamburi Understanding” for linking it to the presence of British special forces and access to Kenyan military facilities.
      While the arrangement for British forces to use Kenyan military facilities, airports and harbours was agreed upon at independence with Mr Sandys, who was the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the training of the GSU commandoes came into existence in December 1964, the “Bamburi Understanding” was in January 1967.
      But British Foreign Secretary Sir Alec Douglas-Home did not think it was worth getting into an argument on the three issues in the Prime Minister’s letter to President Kenyatta.
      As late as May 1981, the agreement was still in existence, according to a brief prepared for Margaret Thatcher, the first female British Prime minister (1979-1990), when she met Kenya’s then Foreign Minister Robert Ouko in London.
      “Kenya has our friendship/support. Kenya policy to stand on her own feet militarily is right. We will continue to help Kenya absorb new equipment,” said the brief.
      It added that in case Somali attacked Kenya “UK would give all help it could, but it is unlikely our response could include commitment of combat troops. Nor indeed do we suppose that Kenya would wish for this.”
      Ironically, despite the fears in the 1960s, it was the Kenyan Defence Forces that would go into Somalia decades later, in October 2011, to pursue al-Shabaab terrorists. The Kenyan forces are now part of the African Union Mission in Somalia that is trying to restore security in the country that has been grappling with civil war since the collapse of the Barre regime in 1991.