![At 3-33 on 9th oct, some children Playing inside Aayin Camp Benue [Photo Credit Popoola Ademola Premium Timesv]](https://i0.wp.com/media.premiumtimesng.com/wp-content/files/2026/03/WhatsApp-Image-2026-03-07-at-05.54.10.jpeg?resize=360%2C180&ssl=1)
The long-running dispute over offshore oil wells between Akwa Ibom and Cross River states has resurfaced, with both states restating opposing legal and political positions — Akwa Ibom denying any reallocation of the oil wells and Cross River insisting it must not be denied “its rights”.
Akwa Ibom officials dismissed reports suggesting oil wells attributed to the state would be returned to Cross River, while Governor Bassey Otu of Cross River maintained that “fairness must prevail” in the aftermath of the Bakassi Peninsula’s cession to Cameroon.
|
|
Akwa Ibom: ‘No oil well ceded’
Addressing journalists in Uyo, the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice in Akwa Ibom, Uko Udom, SAN, said the controversy stemmed from misinterpretation of a draft report submitted by a Federal Government inter-agency committee to the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC).
He said the commission clarified that what it received on 13 February 2026 was only a draft, not a decision or approved recommendation.
|
|
|---|
“The Commission has described the circulating claims as speculative and not reflective of any final position,” Mr Udom said.
He anchored the state’s position on two Supreme Court judgements, which conclusively settled the maritime boundary and oil wells dispute.
“The legal position, therefore, stands firmly established,” he said, stressing that under Section 235 of the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions are final and binding.
“No inter-agency committee, no technical panel, and no institutional process can alter, amend, reinterpret, or sit in appeal over a judgment of the Supreme Court,” Mr Udom added.
He declared: “No oil well has been ceded. No Supreme Court judgement has been overturned. No constitutional provision has been amended.”
‘No cause for alarm’ — Governor Eno
Governor Umo Eno of Akwa Ibom also urged residents to remain calm, dismissing claims of any transfer of oil wells.
“There are two Supreme Court judgements that give Akwa Ibom State the right to those oil wells. We are not sharing maritime boundaries with Cross River State but with the Republic of Cameroon, and the Nigerian Supreme Court has said so twice to establish this fact,” he said.
The governor added, “There is no cause for alarm. The people on the other side may cook up any story they want; raise propaganda, but this propaganda has no effect in the face of the two Supreme Court decisions establishing our ownership of the oil wells. This is not about sentiments.”
He expressed confidence in President Bola Tinubu’s commitment to the rule of law, stating, “I believe in the administration of President Tinubu; I believe that the rule of law will be respected; I believe that we cannot throw away Supreme Court decisions twice on this particular matter.”
Cross River: ‘We won’t be denied our rights’
Governor Otu said Cross River should not suffer economic loss following the ceding of the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon.
Speaking on Monday at the Margaret Ekpo International Airport, Calabar, he said the decision to cede Bakassi for national peace should not deprive Cross River of oil resources, Tribune newspaper reported.
“The ceding of part of Bakassi was for the peace of the country. It was not for Cross River State to lose its oil wells. We are full-fledged Nigerians. Nobody can deny us our rights, and that time has come,” Mr Otu said.
Background
The oil wells dispute between the two neighbouring states dates back decades and is rooted in boundary interpretations following Nigeria’s implementation of the 2002 International Court of Justice judgement that ceded the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon.
Akwa Ibom maintains the ruling removed Cross River’s littoral status and offshore derivation rights — a position it says was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2005 and 2012.
RMAFC has also refuted claims that any oil wells were ceded, describing such reports as false and misleading.
Both states signalled they would continue to pursue their positions through lawful and constitutional means as the dispute remains politically and economically significant.
