No answer in sight as 15-judge bench sits to determine Kenya-Somalia dispute

There might never be a deal to settle the Kenya-Somalia dispute over the ocean boundary claimed by the two countries and a 15-judge bench will determine Somalia's case on against Kenya.

Somalia's submissions yesterday before the 15-judge bench in the Hague based Court, International Court of Justice were straight and to the point — that it is not willing to go back to the drawing board with Kenya over alleged bad faith.

Somalia's interest over the contested waters, according to arguments fronted by its lawyers, are of economic nature and include oil exploration and fishing.

On the last day of the hearing, Somalia argued that Kenya is trying to use its political muscle to kick her out of the waters that have fish, and are potentially viable for oil exploration.

The court heard that Kenya is unwilling to back down on its hard-line position of demarcation and that efforts to engage in talks are of no benefit to Somalia.

Somalia argued that Kenya should be kicked out of the contested area on account that it is "taking the advantage of its instability to grab its waters."

Somalia fronted a four-pronged argument, asking The Hague-based court to dismiss Kenya's objection to the case.

It argued that Kenya knows it has no support for its claim on the contested waters and thus 'it invented an argument using its fat legal minds to take away the case from the court.'

"It is the first time Somalia is appearing before an international court. Somalia is faced with instability, hunger and terrorism.

"On the other hand, Kenya has refused to exercise refrain from the disputed area. Kenya has been there since 1979 and Somalia cannot agree with the misguided attitude," lawyer Paul Reichler, for Somalia, said.

Somalia wants the court to demarcate the maritime boundary, and to determine the exact geographical co-ordinates as an extension of her southeastern land borders. Kenya, on the other hand, wants the border to run in parallel to the line of latitude on its eastern border.

The court heard that the agreement, which Kenya was relying on in its objection, did not have any relation to settling the deadlock between the two neighbouring countries.

According to Somalia, the agreement signed in 2009 was meant to give the two countries an easy time in giving their submissions on where the boundary should be to the Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf.

Somalia pointed an accusing finger at Kenya saying that although it fought for its freedom, it cannot stick to the waters as a claim 'for payment.'

Lawyers representing Kenya had told the bench of 15 international judges that Somalia's focus on its case was misplaced, as it is still struggling with terrorists who attack Kenyans from both the contested ocean territory and land.

"It is an inconvenient truth that hundreds of Kenyans have died because of Al Shabaab militants. The context of the sea is serious insecurity that directly affects Kenya," said lawyer Payam Akhavan representing Kenya.