Emmanuel Ulayi, PhD
I am writing this piece from Indianapolis, Indiana, USA where I spent a white Christmas resting away from my extremely tight schedule back home in Nigeria. I needed the rest after two years without vacation. But the below 46`F average daily weather proves a little tough for me to handle.
However, news of renewed effort by my governor, His Excellency, Senator Prince Bassey Otu, supported by other leaders in Cross Rivers State warms my heart beyond measure.
Unfolding developments in my home state of Cross River has always been crucial particularly as it relates to the public hearings of the Federal Government Inter Agency Technical Committee Programme set up by the father of the new Nigeria, President Ahmed Bola Tinubu to revisit the issue of the disputed 76 oil wells belonging to Cross Rivers State but which revenues have been unjustly allocated to Akwa Ibom State since 2012.
As a Cross Rivers indigene and a former government functionary, I am acutely aware of the case and the implications of the loss of revenues from those oil wells for the development of the state. From a comfortable position as an oil-producing state with revenues from the derivation formula and taxes on oil companies, the state dropped overnight among the states with the least allocations from the Federation account while its internally generated revenue also took a deep dive.
And the real cost: loss of precious lives of Cross-Riverians in road accidents due to bad roads; the women and the children who died of snakebite and other ailments for lack of drugs in government health facilities etc.
But how did we get here? Nigeria and Cameroon had been at loggerheads over the Bakassi Peninsula. General Sani Abacha instituted a case at the International Court of Justice to determine the ownership. The judgement of the World Court in 2002 gave a part of the peninsula to Cameroon. Capitalising on the onshore-offshore derivation dichotomy, Akwa-Ibom State pursued a legal case culminating in the judgement of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in 2012 which held that Cross River State, by virtue of the ICJ ruling could no longer claim offshore wells solely on the claim of being a littoral state.
Cross River had maintained it still had access to the open sea through the Cross River estuary and so should continue to benefit from the 76 oil wells within its waters boundary. Akwa-Ibom countered relying solely on administrative interpretations.
However, with that ruling of the Supreme Court, Akwa-Ibom State has been collecting revenues due from the oil wells as well as other wells adding up to 246 ever since leaving the former high and dry.
Successive administrations in Cross River State have complained because of the cash crunch occasioned by the development. However, none had taken any concrete steps to remedy the situation until the incumbent Governor.
Cross River State’s view: Leading the case for reallocation of the contended oil wells to Cross River State, after a careful study of the judgement of the ICJ and that of the Supreme Court, the State Governor,
His Excellency, Senator (Prince) Bassey Otu argued that “By virtue of the Cross River estuary configuration under the ICJ judgement, Nigeria retained an unceeded Body of Water (BOW) from the estuary mouth through the East Point median line down to the G Point including the associated elongated continental shelf rights. This confirms the continuous seaward projection and littoral status of Cross River State.”
Likewise, Rt. Hon. John Gaul Lebo, a former Speaker of the State House of Assembly submitted that the Supreme Court judgement did not determine ownership of the 76 oil wells, nor did it award them to Akwa Ibom State.
In an article in the Eagles Voice News, Rt. Hon. Lebo contended that “the Supreme Court made no order transferring, awarding, or reallocating the 76 oil wells.
Instead, the Court expressly stated that the responsibility for oil well attribution lay with the constitutionally designated federal agencies—the National Boundary Commission (NBC), the Office of the Surveyor-General of the Federation (OSGOF), and the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC)—and that the wells should be ascribed to the offshore boundary between Cross River State and Akwa Ibom State where they are physically located, based on proper technical determination.”
Cross River State argued that despite no order transferring ownership of the oil wells from Cross River State to Akwa-Ibom State, all agencies of the Federal Government responsible for boundary delamination and revenue allocation: National Boundary Commission, (NBC); Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation, and Fiscal Commission, (RMAFC); and Office of the Surveyor-General of the Federation, (OSG since 2012, the NBC, RMAFC, and (OSGOF), “have consistently ascribed derivation from the 76 oil wells to Akwa Ibom State, relying on an assumed interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment,” the former Speaker said.
Another point stressed by the former speaker is “the fact that no scientific, geological, hydrographic, or geodetic survey has ever been carried out by these agencies to verify the actual coordinates and locations of the wellheads relative to the offshore boundaries of both states. No coordinate-based mapping, seabed analysis, or boundary overlay exercise was undertaken to establish factual entitlement.”
The cross River State petition to the President provided a 600 page comprehensive and Compelling scientific, geological, hydrographic, maritime and legal evidence including surface coordinates of 245 oil wells,
Reservoir coordinates of 188 wellheads and 41 shared Reservoir continuity straddles extending from the Cross River Elongated Continental Shelf toward the boundary with Cameroon including the Body of Water within the Cross River Estuary from the West Point median line to the East Point line at the mouth of the Akwayafe Estuary.
This exercise applies modern survey science and verifiable coordinates to determine the precise offshore locations of the 76 oil wells in relation to the maritime boundaries of both Cross River State and Akwa Ibom State.
Buttressing the point that it was never the intention of the Supreme Court judgement to cede the oil wells in question to Akwa-Ibom State, a comparison of the decision with earlier Supreme Court decisions in similar cases should put the arguments to rest. Where the Supreme Court intended to award oil wells and derivation entitlement, it made specific and detailed orders.
In Rivers State v. Akwa Ibom State, where 86 oil wells were awarded to Rivers State, and Rivers State v. Imo State in which oil wells were reallocated to Rivers State, the Court expressly identified the applicable maps, coordinates, and wells.
the judgment clearly listed the wells, their locations, coordinates, and host communities.
By contrast, in Cross River State v. Akwa Ibom State, no such orders exist.
The judgment contains no list of the 76 oil wells, no coordinates, no Oil Mining Lease (OML) numbers, and no host communities. This omission is decisive and confirms that the Supreme Court did not intend to allocate or reallocate the oil wells, but deliberately left the matter to technical determination by federal agencies.
Based on these facts, Cross River State appealed to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in 2025 in a 600-page petition copied to RMAFC, BBC, NUPRC, and OSGOF “with evidence of 245 new oil wells and scientific, geological, and legal evidence justifying the state’s oil-producing status,” according to the Cross River state commissioner for information, Erasmus Ekpang.
Commendably, President Tinubu wasted no time in constituting an Inter-Agency Committee to look into the matter. This prompt action by the President further solidifies his reputation as a man of action and a listening leader ready to right all wrongs and ensure justice is served.
The Committee conducted scientific, geological study and survey of the area in contention in November 2025 with all evidence affirming Cross River State as the rightful owner of the 76 oil wells and the additional 245 new ones.
However, the good intention and integrity of President Tinubu and the efforts of the Committee are being rubbished by Akwa-Ibom State. At a public hearing scheduled by the Inter-Agency Committee January 29th to present their findings, Akwa-Ibom State delegation, perceiving the report was not favourable to them, threw up a tantrum, forcing the Committee to halt the presentation of the report midway while postponing it to another day.
Whatsoever they want to achieve by their action they need to beat in mind that scientific facts are not subject to political machinations and interference.
The time has come for Cross River State and its citizens to get justice.
We lost precious portion of our territory to Cameroon due to the ICJ decision. Thousands of our citizens were uprooted from their ancestral land and became refugees because they chose to remain Nigerians. These people have neither been compensated nor are they being adequately taken care of due to paucity of funds.
While the Akwa-Ibom State leaders enjoy the illegal flow of oil revenue, the real cost of the fraud is the Cross River child that dies for lack of adequate health care, the pregnant mothers dying in childbirth, the Bakassi people who have no homes of their own and what more.
I heartily commend President Tinubu, he has shown himself an able leader. I praise Governor Otu resuscitating the case and all leaders of the state for uniting behind the governor on the case.
I implore the President to ensure there is no political interference in the matter. The report should not stay “arrested.” Governor Otu and leaders of Cross River State should not sleep at this critical time. Everything should be done to make sure the report and its recommendations see the light of the day.
