Seun Bamidele human security into the adjudication of territorial disputes. Such frameworks must go beyond binary sovereignty claims to incorporate community histories, cultural identities, and participatory justice. As LeFebvre (2014) contends, successful peace negotiations require a recognition of how border communities experience identity and belonging — not merely where borders are drawn. Second, there is an urgent need for post-conflict reconstruction programs that center the voices of displaced persons and prioritize legal status, gender equity, and media representation. This entails not only the provision of identity documentation and voting rights, but also psychosocial support, trauma counseling, and durable housing solutions. Efforts must also be made to include displaced communities in the design and implementation of these policies to avoid reproducing top-down paternalism. Finally, the Bakassi Peninsula dispute presents an opportunity to rethink the ethics and politics of territorial realignment in Africa’s fragile borderlands. As Otora (2022) and Kah (2014) argue, many African border conflicts are rooted not only in colonial cartography but also in the persistent failure of states to reconcile administrative sovereignty with the lived realities of borderland populations. The Bakassi experience demonstrates that legal resolutions without human-centered follow-up can produce a false peace, one in which the guns may fall silent, but the structural violence of exclusion persists. Therefore, scholars, diplomats, and policymakers must interrogate the assumptions underpinning legalistic models of conflict resolution and advocate for approaches that embed justice, recognition, and care into the post-conflict landscape. Conclusion This study has critically examined the Bakassi Peninsula territorial transfer, exposing how legal exclusion, statelessness, media erasure, and post-conflict governance failures have collectively shaped the lives of displaced communities. While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling and the Greentree Agreement were internationally applauded for their adherence to peaceful boundary settlement protocols, they simultaneously exemplify the pitfalls of international legal mechanisms that prioritize state sovereignty over the human consequences of territorial realignment. This research contributes to debates in international law, border studies, and post-conflict justice by foregrounding the lived experiences and legal liminality of those rendered invisible by formal peace processes. Brazilian Journal of African Studies | Porto Alegre | v. 10, n. 19, Jan./Jun. 2025 | p. 144-169 163