BAKKASSI: More than two decades after the historic ruling by the International Court of Justice on the ownership of the Bakassi Peninsula, fresh legal and technical arguments are emerging over offshore oil wells in Nigeria’s coastal region, raising questions about whether Cross River State was wrongly stripped of its oil-producing status.
The renewed debate centres on the ownership of offshore oil wells located in waters adjoining the Gulf of Guinea and whether earlier boundary interpretations accurately reflected the state’s maritime entitlements.
In 2002, the International Court of Justice resolved the long-running territorial dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon by awarding sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon.
While the ruling settled the international border dispute, it also triggered a series of domestic legal and administrative decisions within Nigeria regarding the control of offshore resources in the region.
At the centre of the controversy were 76 offshore oil wells, which later became the subject of litigation before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
Relying heavily on hydrographic and maritime boundary reports provided by federal agencies, the court ruled that the disputed wells fell within maritime territory attributed to Akwa Ibom State rather than Cross River.
The decision led to Cross River’s removal from the list of Nigeria’s oil-producing states, effectively cutting it off from derivation revenue allocated to states that host petroleum resources.
More than a decade after the judgment, analysts and stakeholders argue that the ruling may not have fully settled the issue.
Some legal experts contend that the Supreme Court judgment addressed only the 76 specific wells presented in the case, rather than all hydrocarbon deposits potentially located within Cross River’s coastal and maritime domain.
Critics also point to the reliance on older hydrographic data, some of which predated modern geospatial mapping technology. According to them, advances in offshore mapping and resource delineation could reveal new insights into the precise coordinates of oil wells in the region.
These arguments have prompted calls for a fresh technical review of offshore oil well locations using modern mapping systems.
Another dimension of the debate involves claims that additional oil wells — estimated by some analysts at about 67, may exist within onshore and nearshore formations in areas such as:
-
Ikang mangrove zone
-
Western Bakassi
-
Calabar estuary
These areas remain within Nigerian territory and have historically been linked administratively to Cross River State.
Geologically, the locations form part of the Cross River Basin, also known as the Calabar Flank, a sedimentary basin within the hydrocarbon-rich Gulf of Guinea system.
Exploration activities in the Calabar Flank date back to the 1950s when multinational oil companies began drilling exploratory wells across southeastern Nigeria.
Although early drilling produced limited commercial results, technological advances and renewed interest in frontier oil basins have brought fresh attention to the area.
One frequently cited example is the operation of Oil Mining Lease 114 by Moni Pulo Limited near the mouth of the Calabar River. Oil was discovered there in 1990, and production began in 1999.
Supporters of Cross River’s claim argue that this discovery demonstrates the presence of commercially viable hydrocarbon deposits in areas historically linked to the state.
Another key aspect of the discussion concerns parts of the western Bakassi Peninsula that were not ceded to Cameroon following the ICJ ruling.
Community stakeholders maintain that several islands including Dayspring 1, Abana, Dayspring 2 and Kwa Island remain under Nigerian jurisdiction and continue to be administered by Cross River State.
Evidence cited includes administrative actions by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which has created electoral wards and polling units in the area, with elections held there consistently since 2011.
Advocates say this continued governance presence supports Cross River’s claim to a littoral status and access to maritime resources.
Legal analysts also reference the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which governs maritime boundaries and the rights of coastal states over offshore resources.
Under UNCLOS principles, the shape of coastlines and proximity to maritime zones can influence a state’s entitlement to offshore natural resources.
Some experts therefore argue that Cross River’s coastal geography, combined with the existence of unceded Bakassi territories, could justify a re-examination of maritime boundaries affecting resource allocation.
The controversy has also raised questions about the role of federal agencies involved in boundary demarcation and petroleum regulation, including:
-
National Boundary Commission
-
Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission
Critics claim inconsistencies in mapping exercises and delays in verifying well coordinates as directed by the Supreme Court in 2012 may have contributed to the ongoing dispute.
Beyond legal and technical debates, the issue has also taken on a socio-economic dimension.
Community leaders in Bakassi have complained about what they describe as the misallocation of benefits meant for host communities under the Petroleum Industry Act 2021.
Some stakeholders have specifically questioned the establishment of the Abana Host Communities Development Trust, alleging that it has been linked to communities outside Cross River State.
Residents argue that despite bearing environmental and social impacts from offshore oil operations, they have not received the economic benefits expected from host community arrangements.
The consequences of Cross River’s exclusion from the list of oil-producing states have been significant.
Under Nigeria’s constitution, natural resources belong to the federal government, but oil-producing states receive a share of revenue through the derivation principle, enshrined in Section 162(2).
Because the disputed wells were attributed to Akwa Ibom State, Cross River lost access to these derivation funds, affecting its ability to finance infrastructure and development projects.
Meanwhile, Akwa Ibom continues to benefit substantially from offshore oil production, reinforcing its status as one of Nigeria’s leading oil-producing states.
Supporters of Cross River’s claim say the growing body of legal, technical and community-based arguments does not necessarily challenge the authority of earlier rulings but instead calls for a modern reassessment using current mapping technologies.
Proponents argue that a transparent technical review could clarify the true location of offshore wells and restore confidence in Nigeria’s resource governance framework.
The Bakassi issue has gradually evolved from an international territorial dispute into a broader national debate about resource control, fairness and maritime rights.
As new data emerges and advocacy from stakeholders intensifies, the question of offshore oil ownership in the Gulf of Guinea may remain a defining issue in Nigeria’s coastal politics.
For Cross River State, observers say the future may depend not on reopening past conflicts but on pursuing a fact-based reassessment capable of aligning legal decisions with present-day technical realities.
Whether such efforts will succeed remains uncertain, but the debate underscores the enduring complexity of the Bakassi legacy and its implications for Nigeria’s economic and political landscape.
