Bakassi Fallout Resurfaces: Akwa Ibom, Cross River Clash Over Offshore Oil Rights
By NINI NDUONOFIT-AKOH
Oil Dispute Reignites Between Neighbouring States
THE protracted dispute over offshore oil wells between Akwa Ibom State and Cross River State has resurfaced, with both governments restating sharply divergent legal and political positions.
While Akwa Ibom authorities insist no oil wells have been reallocated, Cross River Governor Bassey Otu says “fairness must prevail” in the aftermath of the cession of the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon.
The renewed tension follows reports suggesting that oil wells currently attributed to Akwa Ibom might be returned to Cross River — a claim strongly denied by officials in Uyo.
Akwa Ibom Anchors Position on Supreme Court Judgements
Addressing journalists, Akwa Ibom’s Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Uko Udom, SAN, described the controversy as the result of a misinterpreted draft report from a Federal Government inter-agency committee submitted to the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC).
According to him, the document in question was merely a draft, not an approved recommendation or final decision.
“The legal position stands firmly established,” Mr. Udom stated, citing two Supreme Court rulings that he said conclusively settled the maritime boundary and offshore oil wells dispute.
Relying on Section 235 of the Constitution, he emphasised that Supreme Court decisions are final and binding, adding that no committee or administrative panel can override or reinterpret such judgements.
Governor Umo Eno reinforced that stance, urging residents to disregard what he described as speculative narratives. He maintained that the Supreme Court had twice affirmed Akwa Ibom’s entitlement to the disputed oil wells.
“We are not sharing maritime boundaries with Cross River but with the Republic of Cameroon, and the Supreme Court has established this fact,” the governor said, expressing confidence that President Bola Tinubu would uphold the rule of law.
Cross River Frames Issue as Economic Justice
In Calabar, Governor Otu struck a different tone, framing the matter as one of equity following the loss of the Bakassi Peninsula pursuant to the 2002 judgement of the International Court of Justice.
“The ceding of part of Bakassi was for national peace. It was not for Cross River State to lose its oil wells,” he said, arguing that the state should not bear economic consequences for a decision taken in the national interest.
Cross River officials contend that the loss of littoral status after Bakassi’s cession significantly reduced the state’s access to offshore derivation revenue — a crucial component of oil-producing states’ allocations.
Legal History and Fiscal Stakes
The dispute traces back to Nigeria’s implementation of the ICJ ruling, which transferred sovereignty over Bakassi to Cameroon. Subsequent litigation culminated in Supreme Court judgements in 2005 and 2012, which Akwa Ibom argues affirmed its maritime boundary claims.
The RMAFC has since clarified that no final decision has been made to alter existing oil well attributions, describing circulating claims as speculative.
At stake are substantial derivation revenues that form a major part of oil-producing states’ fiscal inflows. The outcome influences not only inter-state relations but also federal revenue distribution calculations.
A Dispute Far from Resolved
Though both states have pledged to pursue their claims through lawful channels, the rhetoric underscores the economic sensitivity of offshore oil resources.
For Akwa Ibom, the matter is settled law. For Cross River, it remains an unfinished question of fairness and compensation in the wake of Bakassi’s loss.
As federal institutions navigate the controversy, the oil wells dispute once again highlights the complex intersection of constitutional law, resource control, and post-Bakassi geopolitics in Nigeria’s federal structure.
