Authored By: Celestine-Ebeku Godswill Okonowoka
The University of Nigeria Nsukka
INTRODUCTION
In the aftermath of the ceding of the Bakassi peninsula by Nigeria to Cameroon following the judgement of the International Court of Justice in 2002[1] and implementation of the Greentree Agreement[2] in 2008, a dispute over remnant maritime territory under Nigerian jurisdiction, and the oil wells therein, arose between two states, Cross River and Akwa Ibom. This article intends to highlight the disparity in addressing questions of fact and those of law, while answering the question posed by assessing the background of the dispute, the status quo and possible interventions to conclusively resolve the dispute.
BACKGROUND
Following the ceding of Bakassi and the subsequent loss of territory by Cross River State, questions arose regarding the State’s littoral status and by extension, its oil-producing status. To resolve these questions, the Cross River State Government filed proceedings against the Federal Government and the Akwa Ibom State Government, requesting the Supreme Court determine if Cross River State held the status of a littoral state, therefore qualifying it to receive revenue derived from offshore oil exploration[3]. The State also asked the Court grant a permanent injunction estopping the Federal Government and Akwa Ibom State Government from attempting to obstruct it from claiming or receiving said revenue.
The Akwa Ibom State Government, however, argued that the Cross River’s littoral status was due to its previous ownership of the now-ceded Bakassi peninsula, but it lost that status following the ceding. Therefore, Cross River effectively became landlocked between Akwa Ibom and Cameroon, losing its statutory rights to offshore oil revenue[4] and the 76 oil wells in contest.
The Court held in favor of the defendants, dismissing the claims of the Plaintiff and declaring that as a result of the full implementation of the Greentree Agreement, Cross River’s littoral status is non-existent, disqualifying it from receiving revenue derived from offshore oil exploration[5]. As a result of that judgement, Cross River State was stripped of both its status as a littoral and an oil-producing state, losing rights to revenue from the 76 offshore oil wells formerly attributed to it.
THE STATUS QUO
Following the judgement, the 76 oil wells in contention were attributed to Akwa Ibom State, which has been receiving allocation from derived revenue, at the expense of Cross River State. Meanwhile, Cross River State has continuously questioned the accuracy of the decision, relying on geographic evidence and hydrological surveys to assert that it remains a littoral state, as well as an oil-producing state.
According to analysts, the maritime boundary between the disputing states is yet to be demarcated[6], meaning only an assumption has determined administration of jurisdiction and reception of revenue, one this article seeks to rectify.
RESOLVING THE AKWA IBOM-CROSS RIVER OIL WELLS DISPUTE
Resolving this dispute will require acknowledgement of the fact that a Supreme Court decision cannot alter geographic realities. The convergence of the Cross and Calabar rivers primarily led to the formation of the estuary through which they drain into the Atlantic Ocean[7], making it a natural feature. The ceding of the Bakassi peninsula took away only the eastern part of the estuary, starting from the Akwayefe River to the Peninsula, up to the Rey Estuary[8] which is linked to the Cross River Estuary via tributary water systems. Geographically speaking, the entire western part of the estuary remains indisputably within Nigerian territory, draining the Cross, Kwa and Calabar rivers as well as other tributary rivers. The brackish water which constitutes the estuary directly flows from the Cross, Calabar, Great and Small Kwa rivers, serving as their outlet into the Atlantic Ocean. Neither the ICJ judgement nor the Greentree Agreement ceded the entire water body to Cameroon, only the Rey Estuary was completely ceded. Considering this, it is safe to assert that the Cross River Estuary is still part of Cross River State, hence the State is, as a matter of fact, a littoral state.
Furthermore, a 2026 report submitted by the Inter-Agency Technical Committee on Oil producing states, following several hydrographic surveys, confirmed the geolocation of over 100 oil wells within the Cross River Estuary, all of which have been unequivocally attributed to Cross River State[9], relying on the geographical fact that the estuary remains part of the State’s territory. Thus, the report recommended the restoration of the State’s littoral and oil producing status.
Evidence adduced thus far continues to strengthen Cross River State’s littoral and oil producing claim, while weakening Akwa Ibom State’s argument which is dependent on the ceding of Bakassi. The 76 oil wells in dispute remain contested due to a Supreme Court decision, but geographic evidence seem to favour attribution of those oil wells to Cross River. The failure of the Nigeria Boundary Commission to demarcate the maritime boundary between Cross River and Akwa Ibom States further complicates the situation[10]. This article submits that a final resolution of this conflict will be achieved upon the demarcation of the maritime boundary of the disputing states, guided by proper geographic assessments and surveys. Such demarcation must correspond with the reports and submissions of experts who have conducted several surveys on the maritime body between 2012 and 2026, most of which have confirmed the geographical status of the estuary as part of the Cross and Calabar River networks, thus retaining its status as Cross River’s internal waters, this granting the state its littoral status.
Moreover, this article asserts that just like the coordinates of the over 100 oil wells attributed to Cross River State by the Inter-Agency Technical Committee have been confirmed to be within the estuary, the updated coordinates of the 76 oil wells in dispute should be made available upon verification by the Office of the Surveyor General of the Federation. Such verification will require submission of coordinates by both parties and conduct of hydrographic surveys to confirm said coordinates. Once the verification process is concluded and said coordinates are confirmed, the parties can then accept the results in good faith, provided that geographic realities, upon proper analysis, are fully reflected.
CONCLUSION
While this article accepts the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2012 against Cross River as accurate with regard to a question of law, it vigorously disagrees with the decision on the ground that the issue before the Court was fundamentally a question of facts. Geographic realities are determined by expert surveys and geographic assessments done over a reasonable period of time. This responsibility falls to the administrative bodies tasked with conducting such surveys and demarcations, not to the Courts. Echoing Lebo’s assertion[11], it is a product of administrative and not judicial processes. The failure of the Nigeria Boundary Commission to demarcate the maritime boundary of the disputing parties has let the situation persist longer than it should have. This dispute would be best resolved if the Commission properly discharges its responsibility by demarcating the maritime boundary of the disputing states, taking into full consideration the report by the inter-agency committee and the submissions from geographic surveys conducted over the past decade, all but confirming the status of the Cross River estuary as part of Cross River State.
REFERENCE(S):
Statutes
Allocation of Revenue (Abolition of Dichotomy in the Application of the Principle of Derivation) Act, Cap A27, LFN 2004
Cases
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgement, I.C.J Reports 2002, p.303
Attorney-General of Cross River State v Attorney-General of the Federation & Anor (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1329) 211.
Others
https://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/greentree-agreement
Boluwatife Enome ‘John Lebo: Cross River-Akwa Ibom Oil Wells Dispute Unresolved, Boundary Never Demarcated’ Arise Tv (Nigeria, 30th January, 2026) https://www.arise.tv/ Accessed 27th April 2026
John Gaul Lebo ‘Cross River is a littoral state by virtue of the Calabar Estuary, UNCLOS’ The Cable (Nigeria, March 13, 2026) https://www.thecable.ng/ Accessed April 29, 2026
‘Cross River ‘ https://www.britannica.com/ Accessed April 29, 2026
Sayeed Oyelakin ‘ C’River set to regain oil producing status -FG Report ‘ Punch Newspaper (Nigeria, February 15, 2026) https://www.punchng.com/ (Accessed April 29 2026)
[1] Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 303.
[2] A formal treaty which resolved the Cameroon–Nigeria border dispute over the oil and natural gas-rich Bakassi peninsula. https://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/greentree-agreement
[3] Attorney-General of Cross River State v Attorney-General of the Federation & Anor (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1329) 211.
[4] S1(1) Allocation of Revenue (Abolition of Dichotomy in the Application of the Principle of Derivation) Act, Cap A27, LFN 2004
[5] Per Adekeye JSC
[6] Boluwatife Enome ‘John Lebo: Cross River-Akwa Ibom Oil Wells Dispute Unresolved, Boundary Never Demarcated’ Arise Tv (Nigeria, 30th January, 2026) https://www.arise.tv/ Accessed 27th April 2026
[7] ‘Cross River ‘ https://www.britannica.com/ Accessed April 29, 2026
[8] John Gaul Lebo ‘Cross River is a littoral state by virtue of the Calabar Estuary, UNCLOS’ The Cable (Nigeria, March 13, 2026) https://www.thecable.ng/ Accessed April 29, 2026
[9] Sayeed Oyelakin ‘ C’River set to regain oil producing status -FG Report ‘ Punch Newspaper (Nigeria, February 15, 2026) https://www.punchng.com/ (Accessed April 29 2026)
[10] Ibid. n.6
[11] Ibid. n6
