The governments of Akwa Ibom and Cross River states have returned to the battel field, over the disputed 76 oil wells, setting the stage for a fresh war between the sister states.
While the Cross River State government has shown clear signs of its readiness to reopen the case and launch a renewed battle to reclaim the oil wells, the Akwa Ibom neighbours insist that the case had closed, an indication that they would fight to keep the oil wells.
Akwa Ibom State Commissioner for Information, Elder Aniekan Umanah, on Sunday, had urged the public to disregard any claims by Cross River on the oil well saga, saying that the July 2012 ruling of the Supreme Court remained final and binding.
He had said on a television programme that “this is a settled matter. The Supreme Court, in July 2012, ruled on this matter and placed a permanent seal on this conversation.
“That is the highest court of the land. Once the Supreme Court gives a ruling, it is final. This is not a matter we should even talk about. This is a matter that Akwa Ibom State did not even take to court. I mean it is sealed.”
Umanah’s position came about 24 hours after his counterpart in the ministry of justice had issued a statement on the matter, urging the Cross River State government to let the issue rest in peace.
He had said that in a press statement titled ’76 Oil Wells: Restating the Facts, that “In light of the renewed petitions, misinformation, and incitement directed at the peace-loving people and Government of Akwa Ibom State by the Government of Cross River State, particularly regarding the ownership of the 76 offshore oil wells validly belonging to Akwa Ibom State, as repeatedly affirmed by all relevant arms of government, it has become necessary to restate the facts and reset the records for the benefit of the general public, especially those unfamiliar with the matter.
“Contrary to the narrative currently being propagated, the Government of Akwa Ibom State did not initiate any legal action against the Government of Cross River State regarding the disputed oil wells. Rather, it was the Cross River State Government that instituted and serially lost two suits against Akwa Ibom State.
“In its first case, Suit No. 124/1999, the Cross River State Government sued Akwa Ibom State over the northern non-estuarine boundary (involving 24 villages of Oku/Itu/Ayadehe Ward in Itu Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State), as well as the southern estuarine boundary where the 76 oil wells are located. On 24th June 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Cross River State only on the matter of the 24 villages in the north. It, however, dismissed their claim over the estuarine southern territory, where the oil wells are situated.
“In its landmark ruling, the Supreme Court declared:
“In considering the merit of the plaintiff’s case, it is important to bear in mind that the effect of the judgment of ICJ dated 10/10/2002 on the land and maritime boundary case between Nigeria and Cameroon is that it has wiped off what used to be the estuarine sector of Cross River State… Cross River no longer has a seaward boundary.”
“Before the second case, Suit No. SC. 27/2010, the Government of Akwa Ibom State made several conciliatory efforts to resolve the issue amicably. These included a proposed ₦250 million ex gratia monthly payment from Akwa Ibom’s derivation revenue to Cross River State, a gesture that was misunderstood and ultimately rejected. This rejection was formalized in a letter dated 27th March 2006.
“Elder statesmen and other stakeholders were also engaged by the Akwa Ibom State Government to discourage litigation, emphasizing the bond of kinship and the potential for long-term damage to inter-state harmony. Unfortunately, these peace overtures were rebuffed.
“Despite Akwa Ibom’s posture of restraint and goodwill, the Cross River State Government initiated fresh legal action seeking judicial clarification on ownership and revenue entitlements over the 76 oil wells, which are situated within the 200-meter isobath and contiguous to Akwa Ibom State.
“After nearly three years of litigation, the Supreme Court on 10th July 2012 again ruled decisively in favour of Akwa Ibom State. The Court stated, per Adekeye, JSC:
“The facts before the court do not support the claim of the plaintiff to being a littoral state. A non-littoral state cannot claim oil wells offshore, as it has no maritime boundary.”
“And per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC (as he then was):
“The plaintiff’s case crumbles due to the wrong assumption that it is a littoral State… That reasoning is strange and unfortunate. It is wrong.”
“This reaffirmed the principle of derivation as provided under Section 162(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Section 1(1) of the Allocation of Revenue (Abolition of Dichotomy in the Application of the Principle of Derivation) Act, 2004.
“A critical legal and geographical fact underpinning this matter is the 2002 International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment ceding the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon. This effectively stripped Cross River State of littoral status and rendered it ineligible to claim offshore oil assets— a fact confirmed by the Supreme Court.
“In a recent meeting convened by His Excellency, the Vice President, both Governors were encouraged to meet and amicably recommend a political solution. As Chairman of the South-South Progressive Governors’ Forum, the Governor of Cross River State was expected to initiate this engagement by inviting the Governor of Akwa Ibom State to settlement talks.
“Unfortunately, instead of embracing dialogue, the Cross River Government chose to prosecute this process through media platforms and public statements that are capable of derailing the process.
“Even more concerning, several officials of the Cross River State Government have made incendiary and patently false claims that have agitated the people of Akwa Ibom State and introduced an unwarranted sense of apprehension. It is for this reason that we are compelled, once again, to set the records straight.
“We reiterate that Akwa Ibom State remains open to a political solution, provided such does not seek to deny our people their lawful and judicially-affirmed rights.
However, a political solution cannot be limited to the matter of the 76 oil wells. It must also address the Akwa Ibom communities that have been added to Cross River State.
“These were the two issues considered by the supreme court in determining the land and maritime boundaries between Cross River State and Akwa Ibom State*.
“The Federal Government has several policy and fiscal options for assisting Cross River State to mitigate the economic consequences of the ICJ judgment. For instance, ecological funds, environmental remediation programmes, and interventions under the South-South Development Commission could be directed to address and support genuine needs without dispossessing Akwa Ibom of its legitimate entitlements.
“It should also be noted that while Akwa Ibom lost 86 oil wells to Rivers State in Suit No: SC.27/2010 (Rivers State v. Akwa Ibom State) decided on 18th March 2011, we accepted the Supreme Court’s verdict in good faith and have remained committed to due process and peaceful coexistence.
Therefore, we strongly caution against renewed incitement, inflammatory media campaigns, or misrepresentation of settled legal matters. We align fully with the counsel of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, that both States should pursue constructive dialogue and mutually beneficial cooperation.
“The Government of Akwa Ibom State will continue to uphold the sanctity of judicial pronouncements, promote peace, and defend what rightly belongs to our people”.
On Monday, the Cross River State government disagreed with the Akwa Ibom State government, saying wrong information on the situation of things were being peddled by Akwa Ibom State.
In responding the position of the Akwa Ibom State Commissioner for Justice and Attorney-General, Uko Udom, SAN, the information commissioner, Cross River State, Dr Erasmus Ekpang said it was unfortunate that whereas The Presidency had waded into the issue, Udom was stoking fire and showing signs it non readiness to listen to the federal government.
Ekpang said in parts: “It is correct that the Government of Cameroon filed a case at the international Court of Justice (ICJ) against Nigeria in 1994 claiming ownership of the Bakassi Peninsula in Cross River State. The ICJ delivered its Judgment in 2002 ceding the Southern portion of the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon leaving out Western Bakassi in Nigeria in the Judgment . The clear implication of that judgment is that Western Bakassi remains in Cross River State and in Nigeria.
“It must be noted that the judgment of the International Court of Justice was implemented by the Signing of the Green Tree Agreement in 2008 where Nigeria and Cameroon ,with the help of the United Nations, set up the structures for the handover of Southern Bakassi Peninsular to Cameroon and initiated the Joint Boundary Demarcation Committee known as the Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed Commission with the mandate of mapping out the land and maritime boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon.
“While the Committee was yet to commence its work of mapping out the actual boundary line of the territories belonging to Nigeria and Cameroon over Bakassi and Lake Chad, the National Boundary Commission and the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission held a retreat in Kano in August 2008 and applied what they called the “Technical Option” as against the “Historic Title Option” earlier used in demarcating the boundary between Cross River and Akwa Ibom States and awarded the 76 oil wells located in western Bakassi to Akwa Ibom State. Let it also be noted that Akwa Ibom State in their petition to the National Boundary Commission had prayed for the application of the Historic Title Option in the resolution of her boundary dispute with Rivers State as was the case with her boundary with Cross River State.
“It is worthy of note also that while Akwa Ibom, Rivers and Bayelsa States were invited to the retreat held in Kano, Cross River State was not invited because it had no boundary dispute with Akwa Ibom prior to August, 2008.
“Notwithstanding the several judgments of the Supreme Court referred to in the Press Release under reference, in March, 2024, the attention of His Excellency, Sen. Prince Bassey Edet Otu, the Governor of Cross River State was drawn to the fact that several oil wells, in OML 114 and 123 Oil fields, were indeed within the Cross River State’s maritime boundary and for which it derived no revenue whatsoever. As a responsible leader, His Excellency, Governor Otu engaged the relevant authority, namely the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission on this revelation.
“Upon receipt of Cross River State’s Complaint, an inter-Agency Committee, Comprising of the Office of the Surveyor General of the Federation, National Boundary Commission, Nigeria Upstream
“Regulatory Commission was constituted with Surveyors- General of Abia, Akwa Ibom, Anambra , Cross River and other oil producing States as observers to determine the veracity of the Cross River State’s Claim. In May, 2024 , the Committee carried out its mandate by plotting the Maritime boundary of Cross River State using the Nation’s Administrative Map 11th edition, as well as the 2004 well dichotomy Study Map and thereafter geolocated the oil wells found therein. At the end of the exercise, sixty-seven (67) oil wells were found to be within the Maritime Boundary of Cross River State. It is this uncomfortable truth, that our sister State (Akwa Ibom) seeks to suppress as it lays bare the injustice Cross River State has had to suffer since the decision of the Supreme Court delivered in 2012, which Akwa Ibom State Government now hides behind.”
