The Akwa Ibom State Government has cautioned against “renewed incitement, inflammatory media campaigns” over the state’s ownership of the 76 oil wells.
In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that some 76 offshore oil wells belong to Akwa Ibom State and not Cross River, ending a long-running controversy over their ownership.
|
|
Cross River filed the suit against Akwa Ibom and the federal government.
Recently, there have been remarks credited to Cross River officials that the 76 oil wells belong to the state, prompting the Akwa Ibom State Government to counter the claim.
|
|
|
|---|
In its first reaction, through a statement issued about three days ago by the Commissioner for Information, Aniekan Umanah, the Akwa Ibom State Government dismissed the renewed controversy surrounding its ownership of the 76 offshore oil wells, maintaining that the Supreme Court decision on the issue is final.
On Saturday, 25 July, the Akwa Ibom State Government issued another statement cautioning against “renewed incitement, inflammatory media campaigns” regarding the state’s ownership of the oil wells.
“We align fully with the counsel of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu that both states should pursue constructive dialogue and mutually beneficial cooperation,” the state government said.
Stay Ahead with Premium Times
Follow us on Google News and never miss breaking stories, investigations, and in-depth reporting.
Add as a preferred source on Google
The latest statement was issued by Uko Udom, SAN, the state’s attorney general and commissioner for justice.
See the full statement from the Akwa Ibom State Government below:
76 Oil Wells: Restatement of Facts
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.”
5. 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 to Cross River State from Akwa Ibom’s derivation revenue, a gesture misunderstood and ultimately rejected. This rejection was formalized in a letter dated 27th March 2006.
6. Elder statesmen and other stakeholders were also engaged by the Akwa Ibom State Government to discourage litigation, emphasising the bond of kinship and the potential for long-term damage to inter-state harmony. Unfortunately, these peace overtures were rebuffed.
7. 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.
8. 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.”
9. 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.”
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Unfortunately, instead of embracing dialogue, the Cross River Government chose to prosecute this process through media platforms, public statements that are capable of infuriating the process.
14. 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.
15. 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, political solution cannot be limited to the matter of the 76 oil wells. It must also address the Akwa Ibom communities 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*.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
Uko Udom, SAN
Hon. Attorney General & Commissioner for Justice
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More News
