76 DISPUTED OIL WELLS | AKWA-IBOM, CROSS-RIVER | REAWAKEN TANGO

EYO NSA-EKPO, Fmr. Chairman Odukpani L.G.A, Cross River State

76 DISPUTED OIL WELLS | AKWA-IBOM, CROSS-RIVER TANGO AGAIN

In the JIGSAW | 29 JULY 2025 | AIT LIVE interview segment, the guest speaker zeroed in on the 76 disputed oil wells between Cross River State and Akwa Ibom State, offering a detailed and impassioned perspective:

Core Issues Raised:

• The guest reaffirmed Cross River State’s claim to the oil wells, citing historical and legal precedents, including the 2002 International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment and the 2008 Green Tree Agreement.
• They criticized federal agencies like the National Boundary Commission and Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) for allegedly applying biased technical criteria that reassigned the wells to Akwa Ibom without proper consultation.
• A major point was that Cross River was excluded from a key 2008 retreat in Kano, where the reassignment decision was made, despite having no prior boundary dispute with Akwa Ibom.

Recent Developments:

• The guest referenced a technical assessment conducted in May 2024, which reportedly found that 67 of the 76 oil wells lie within Cross River’s maritime boundaries.
• They called for federal intervention and urged the public to see through what they described as Akwa Ibom’s “misinformation campaign”.

The tone was assertive and fact-driven, with the guest pushing for justice and transparency.

Let’s unpack the legal and cartographic backbone of this dispute over the 76 oil wells between Cross River and Akwa Ibom States.

Legal Documents & Judgments

Here’s a timeline of key legal milestones:

• 2002 – ICJ Judgment: The International Court of Justice ceded the southern Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon. Cross River argues that the western portion remains Nigerian and under its jurisdiction.
• 2008 – Green Tree Agreement: Nigeria and Cameroon signed this UN-backed treaty to implement the ICJ ruling. It led to the creation of the Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed Commission for boundary demarcation.
• 2008 – Kano Retreat: Federal agencies applied a “technical option” to reassign the oil wells to Akwa Ibom. Cross River claims it was excluded from this retreat despite having no prior boundary dispute with Akwa Ibom.
• 2012 – Supreme Court Ruling: The apex court ruled in favor of Akwa Ibom, stating Cross River was no longer a littoral state and thus couldn’t claim offshore wells.
• 2024 – Technical Reassessment: A federal inter-agency committee found that 67 of the 76 oil wells lie within Cross River’s maritime boundary, based on Nigeria’s 11th Edition Administrative Map and the 2004 Well Dichotomy Study Map.

Maps & Boundary Evidence

The 2024 technical assessment used:

• Nigeria’s 11th Edition Administrative Map
• 2004 Well Dichotomy Study Map

These maps were used to geolocate the oil wells in OMLs 114 and 123, revealing that the majority fall within Cross River’s maritime boundary.

Legal Opinions

Legal experts are split:

• Some argue the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling is final, and reopening the case would be futile unless new, compelling evidence is presented.
• Others believe the court could revisit the judgment if procedural errors or significant new facts emerge.

The dispute over the 76 oil wells between Cross River and Akwa Ibom has a direct and significant impact on revenue sharing, especially regarding Nigeria’s 13% derivation fund allocated to oil-producing states.

How Revenue Sharing Is Affected

• Loss of Derivation Revenue: Because the wells are currently attributed to Akwa Ibom, Cross River receives no derivation funds from them, even though recent technical assessments suggest many lie within its maritime boundary.
• Federal Allocation Formula: The Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) uses geographic data to determine which state gets credit for oil production. If wells are misattributed, the benefiting state receives billions of naira monthly, while the other gets nothing.
• Historical Compensation Offer: Back in 2006, Akwa Ibom reportedly offered Cross River a ₦250 million monthly ex gratia payment from its derivation revenue. Cross River rejected this, insisting on rightful ownership and full revenue entitlement.
• Budgetary Implications: Cross River’s exclusion from oil revenue affects its ability to fund infrastructure, education, healthcare, and other public services, widening the development gap between it and Akwa Ibom.

What’s at Stake

• Justice vs. Finality: Cross River argues that the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling was based on incomplete or biased data, and that new findings justify a review. Akwa Ibom insists the matter is settled and warns against undermining judicial finality.
• Political Tensions: The issue has stirred regional tensions, with both states accusing each other of misinformation and incitement. The Vice President has called for constructive dialogue to avoid escalation.

If Cross River State were to regain ownership of the 67 oil wells identified within its maritime boundary, the financial impact could be transformative. Let’s break it down:

Estimated Monthly Revenue

Nigeria’s 13% derivation fund is paid to oil-producing states based on actual production. While exact production volumes per well vary, we can use conservative industry averages:

• Average output per well: ~2,000 barrels/day
• Total output (67 wells): 134,000 barrels/day
• Monthly output: ~4 million barrels
• Oil price estimate: $80/barrel
• Monthly gross value: $320 million
• 13% derivation share: ~$41.6 million/month
• Annual revenue: ~$500 million (₦750 billion at ₦1,500/$ exchange rate)

Historical Reference

• Akwa Ibom reportedly offered Cross River ₦250 million/month as an ex gratia payment in 20062, a fraction of what Cross River might earn if the wells were reassigned.
• Cross River rejected the offer, insisting on full entitlement.

What That Could Fund

With ₦750 billion annually, Cross River could:

• Build hundreds of kilometers of roads
• Fund free education and healthcare
• Invest in agro-industrial zones and job creation
• Pay off debts and boost reserves

This estimate is based on industry averages and public data. Actual figures would depend on well productivity, global oil prices, and federal allocation formulas.

While the interview on JIGSAW | 29 JULY 2025 | AIT LIVE was rich in detail about the 76 disputed oil wells, there were several critical questions that could have deepened the conversation or clarified lingering uncertainties:

Potentially Missing Questions

• What specific legal steps is Cross River State taking to challenge the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling?
• This would clarify whether the state is pursuing a judicial review, legislative appeal, or diplomatic resolution.
• Has the federal government officially acknowledged the 2024 technical reassessment?
• Knowing whether Abuja recognizes the new findings would indicate how seriously the issue is being considered.
• What role has the National Assembly played in mediating or investigating the dispute?
• This could reveal whether lawmakers are actively involved or silent on the matter.
• Are there any ongoing negotiations between Cross River and Akwa Ibom?
• A peek into behind-the-scenes diplomacy could show whether a peaceful resolution is possible.
• How does this dispute affect oil companies operating in the region?
• Their stance could influence federal decisions, especially if production is disrupted or licenses are contested.
• What is the position of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum or regional blocs like the South-South Governors’ Forum?
• Their support or opposition could sway public opinion and federal action.
• Is there a timeline for resolving the boundary reassessment and revenue reallocation?
• Without a clear roadmap, the issue risks dragging on indefinitely.

Let’s imagine how a journalist or moderator might follow up with the guest from the JIGSAW | 29 JULY 2025 | AIT LIVE interview to push the conversation further and uncover deeper truths.

Follow-Up Questions for the Guest

Here’s a set of pointed, insightful questions that could have added more clarity or accountability:

1.   “Can you provide specific coordinates or documentation supporting Cross River’s claim to the 67 oil wells?” → This would challenge the guest to back up assertions with hard evidence.

2.   “What legal recourse is Cross River pursuing to reopen the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling?” → Aims to clarify whether the state is relying on litigation, executive intervention, or diplomatic channels.

3.   “Has the federal government responded formally to the 2024 technical reassessment?” → Seeks to understand Abuja’s stance and whether the findings are being acted upon.

4.   “Are there any ongoing negotiations or mediation efforts between Cross River and Akwa Ibom?” → Could reveal whether the dispute is escalating or being quietly resolved.

5.   “What impact has this dispute had on oil production and investor confidence in the region?” → Explores economic consequences beyond state revenue.

6.   “How do you respond to critics who say this issue is being politicized ahead of upcoming elections?” → Tests the guest’s motives and addresses public skepticism.

7.   “What role should civil society and traditional institutions play in resolving this boundary conflict?” → Invites broader perspectives and community involvement.

Let’s imagine how the guest, perhaps a Cross River State official or legal expert, might respond to each of those probing questions. I’ll channel a tone that’s assertive, diplomatic, and strategic, reflecting the kind of rhetoric often used in televised interviews.

1. “Can you provide specific coordinates or documentation supporting Cross River’s claim to the 67 oil wells?”

Guest Response: “Yes, we can. The inter-agency committee constituted in 2024, which included the Office of the Surveyor General of the Federation, the National Boundary Commission, and the Nigeria Upstream Regulatory Commission, used the 11th Edition of Nigeria’s Administrative Map and the 2004 Well Dichotomy Study Map. Their findings confirmed that 67 oil wells lie within Cross River’s maritime boundary. These documents are available for scrutiny, and we welcome independent verification.”

2. “What legal recourse is Cross River pursuing to reopen the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling?”

Guest Response: “While we respect the judiciary, we believe that new technical evidence uncovered in 2024 warrants reconsideration. We are exploring a legislative pathway and engaging with the National Assembly to enact laws that reflect this new reality. Litigation may not be our primary route, but we are not ruling out a constitutional review or executive intervention.”

3. “Has the federal government responded formally to the 2024 technical reassessment?”

Guest Response: “Yes. The Presidency has intervened and directed both states to engage stakeholders and report back. We are actively participating in this process, although we must express concern that Akwa Ibom’s posture suggests reluctance to cooperate. We remain committed to dialogue and transparency.”

4. “Are there any ongoing negotiations or mediation efforts between Cross River and Akwa Ibom?”

Guest Response: “Unfortunately, not in the way we had hoped. Despite the Vice President’s call for constructive engagement, Akwa Ibom has chosen to litigate the matter in the media rather than at the negotiation table. We’ve called on neutral bodies like PANDEF to mediate, and we’re open to any credible platform that fosters resolution.”

5. “What impact has this dispute had on oil production and investor confidence in the region?”

Guest Response: “The uncertainty has created a chilling effect. Investors are wary of committing to projects in disputed territories. Cross River has lost billions in potential revenue, and the lack of clarity undermines regional development. We believe resolving this dispute will unlock economic opportunities for both states.”

6. “How do you respond to critics who say this issue is being politicized ahead of upcoming elections?”

Guest Response: “We reject that notion. This is not about politics, it’s about justice and equity. The timing may coincide with electoral cycles, but our pursuit of rightful ownership predates any campaign season. We owe it to our people to correct historical wrongs, regardless of political optics.”

7. “What role should civil society and traditional institutions play in resolving this boundary conflict?”

Guest Response: “A vital one. Civil society can amplify the voices of affected communities and ensure transparency. Traditional institutions, especially in Bakassi and surrounding areas, hold historical knowledge that can guide reconciliation. We urge them to engage constructively and help us build consensus.”