The subjectivity of the international justice system typified by the reactions to the judgments of the ICJ as seen in the Bakassi Case has expanded the frontiers of controversy over international justice. Or when people upon whom a judgment has been declared are deprived of their inalienable human rights, what are the remedies of such of peoples? The dispossession of Bakassi Peninsular from its rightful indigenes has attracted reactions from various quarters in the Nigeria-Cameroon border disputes which came to an end in 2006. This work attempts to address some of the relevant legal, historical and humanitarian issues not considered by the ICJ which are still considered quite germane and unresolved in the dispute over the Bakassi territory between Nigeria and Cameroonian communities. To the Cameroonians this was justice. To the Bakassi people of Nigeria, this decision was questionable and was largely regarded as unjustified because of the resultant degrading consequential interests. The findings of this historical analytical work suggest that both the Nigeria government and the ICJ may nor revise the judgment which has been given. However. This work proposes that a lasting solution to the conflict may ultimately be achieved, only if United nations/ICJ and the Nigeria government will usher in constitution remedies or otherwise need to implement strategies which would cushion the effects and suffering of the Bakassi people.