Akwa Ibom, Cross River Trade Words Over Offshore Oil Wells

The protracted disagreement over offshore oil wells between Akwa Ibom and Cross River States has flared up again, with both governments restating sharply different positions on ownership and economic rights tied to the disputed assets.

While officials in Akwa Ibom rejected reports suggesting any oil wells had been reassigned to Cross River, Governor Bassey Otu of Cross River argued that the state should not lose access to oil resources following the cession of the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon.

Speaking in Uyo, the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Uko Udom (SAN), dismissed claims that oil wells allocated to Akwa Ibom were being returned to Cross River. He said the controversy arose from misinterpretation of a draft document prepared by a Federal Government inter-agency committee and submitted to the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC).

He explained that the commission clarified that the document received on 13 February 2026 was only a draft and not an approved recommendation.

“The Commission has described the circulating claims as speculative and not reflective of any final position,” Mr Udom said.

He grounded the state’s stance on two Supreme Court judgements that resolved the maritime boundary and oil wells dispute between the two states.

“The legal position, therefore, stands firmly established,” he said, noting that Section 235 of the Constitution makes Supreme Court decisions binding and conclusive.

“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,” he added.

He further declared: “No oil well has been ceded. No Supreme Court judgement has been overturned. No constitutional provision has been amended.”

Governor Umo Eno also sought to calm residents, describing reports of any transfer as unfounded.

“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.

“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 that the administration of President Bola Tinubu would uphold the rule of law.

“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,” the governor said.

On his part, Governor Bassey Otu of Cross River maintained that the ceding of the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon for national peace should not translate into economic disadvantage for his state.

Speaking at the Margaret Ekpo International Airport in Calabar on Monday, he said Cross River must not be stripped of oil resources as a consequence of the territorial adjustment.

“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.

The disagreement over offshore oil wells dates back several decades and stems from boundary interpretations following Nigeria’s implementation of the 2002 judgement of the International Court of Justice, which transferred sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon.

Akwa Ibom maintains that the decision stripped Cross River of its littoral status and associated offshore derivation benefits, a position it says was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005 and 2012.

The Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission has also dismissed reports suggesting any oil wells were reassigned, describing such claims as inaccurate.

Despite the renewed public exchanges, both states indicated they would continue to pursue their claims through lawful and constitutional channels, as the matter remains economically and politically significant.