The recent remarks by the Akwa Ibom State Commissioner for Information, citing the 2012 Supreme Court ruling that transferred 76 oil wells from Cross River State to Akwa Ibom, are deeply regrettable—not for referencing the law, but for failing to acknowledge the broader injustice and historical context surrounding that decision.
Governor Bassey Otu’s recent efforts to revisit this matter were not mere political posturing. Rather, they reflect a principled attempt to draw national attention to a gaping constitutional and humanitarian gap—the loss of littoral status by Cross River State following the ceding of the Bakassi Peninsula to the Republic of Cameroon. That event did not only strip Cross River of its coastline; it effectively removed the very basis upon which it qualified as an oil-producing state.
As a consequence, Cross River lost its entitlement to the 13% oil derivation fund—an economic lifeline. No other state in Nigeria has endured such a sudden and severe economic dislocation as Cross River has in the past two decades. Yet rather than support efforts to address this injustice, Akwa Ibom has sought to entrench its gains, showing little regard for the ties of kinship and cultural affinity that bind the two states.
The 76 oil wells in question were not discovered overnight; they were part of Cross River’s recognized assets prior to the International Court of Justice’s ruling on Bakassi. That Akwa Ibom, a state with one of the highest concentrations of oil assets in Nigeria, would persist in holding onto these 76 wells without considering a political compromise is not only unfair—it is unneighborly.
It is equally concerning that the federal government, especially under the leadership of President Olusegun Obasanjo at the time, failed to intervene or propose a political solution to what is clearly an extraordinary situation. When a component state of the federation suffers a loss caused by international diplomacy, the burden of redress should not be shifted to courtrooms alone. It should be borne collectively by the Nigerian state through equitable, compensatory mechanisms.
True federalism demands more than adherence to legalistic outcomes. It requires empathy, flexibility, and a commitment to ensuring that no state is abandoned to fate. The current posture; one of indifference and technical justification risks deepening the resentment of a state that has consistently shown goodwill and peaceful cooperation, even in the face of loss.
The federal government must revisit this matter, not necessarily to overturn court decisions, but to craft a political and economic solution that recognizes the unique injustice Cross River has suffered. Compensation, transitional support, or derivative alternatives must be placed on the table.
Let us not forget: justice delayed is not only justice denies. It is also unity endangered.
Barr. Paul Adinya Idiga
Lawyer and political enthusiast
