John Lebo, the former Speaker of the Cross River State House of Assembly, has asserted that the longstanding dispute concerning offshore oil wells between Cross River and Akwa Ibom states remains unresolved, citing the ambiguous status of internal maritime boundaries in the region.
In an interview with ARISE News on Thursday, Lebo challenged statements claiming that this issue had been resolved by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2002 and the Supreme Court in 2012.
He indicated that the confusion surrounding the dispute is exacerbated by a lack of clear distinctions between international court rulings, domestic judicial decisions, and the technical processes involved in boundary delineation.
“We need to differentiate between the ruling of the International Court of Justice in 2002, the Supreme Court's verdict in 2012, and the activities conducted by the National Boundary Commission,” Lebo explained.
He noted that the ICJ’s ruling predominantly tackled Nigeria’s international border with Cameroon, rather than addressing the internal maritime boundary dispute between the two states.
“The 2002 ICJ judgment focused on three estuaries: the Cross River Estuary, the Akwa Akpa Estuary, and Rio del Rey. The court adjudicated international boundaries at the mouth of the Akwa Akpa Estuary and delineated a median line into the Gulf of Guinea,” he elaborated.
Lebo highlighted that the ruling also established a secondary median line, which is crucial for maintaining maritime access for Cross River State’s claims.
“The court indicated a second median line to ensure maritime access, which is essential for Cross River. This means that one cannot transit from Akwa Ibom to Cameroon without passing through Cross River; that access is tied to Cross River,” he noted.
Refuting the term “Marwa Line,” Lebo insisted that the ICJ's ruling was informed by treaties from the colonial period, not by agreements made after Nigeria's independence.
“There is no such thing as a Marwa Line. The so-called Marwa Line arises from an agreement between General Yakubu Gowon and President Ahmadou Ahidjo. The court proceedings were concerned with the interpretation of colonial treaties, not political pacts,” he asserted.
He emphasized that international law does not allow for a coast to be rendered landlocked.
“The law of the sea ensures that no coastline can be made landlocked. International agreements are aimed at safeguarding maritime access,” Lebo remarked.
Addressing the issue of Nigeria’s internal boundaries, he revealed that Cross River State had sought clarification from the National Boundary Commission (NBC) back in 2004, highlighting discrepancies in the ICJ's mapping.
“We contacted the NBC requesting clarification on the borders with Cameroon, Nigeria, and Equatorial Guinea, as well as on the internal boundaries between Akwa Ibom and Cross River,” he stated.
According to Lebo, the NBC’s response confirmed that those boundaries had not been clearly marked on the ground.
“We received a letter from the Director-General of the National Boundary Commission indicating that the boundary between Akwa Ibom and Cross River State had not been properly delineated in reality,” he mentioned.
He dismissed assertions that the maps used for revenue allocation represent definitive boundary maps.
“What we have is not a boundary map but rather a model for oil dichotomy studies. A study model does not equate to a legally recognized map,” he explained.
Regarding the 2012 Supreme Court ruling, Lebo contended that the judgment did not invalidate Cross River State’s claim to being recognized as an oil- producing region.
“The Supreme Court never stated that Cross River State cannot have oil wells,” he clarified.
He noted that Cross River had subsequently provided new technical data to the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC).
“We submitted over 600 pages of documentation, including surface coordinates for 245 oil wells, reservoir coordinates for 188 wells, and 41 reservoir wells that are located across Nigeria and Cameroon,” he said.
Lebo revealed that post-submission, the RMAFC and other pertinent agencies performed ground verification, with personnel from both states involved.
“Revenue Mobilisation representatives came to Cross River in the company of the Akwa Ibom Surveyor-General and other officials. They confirmed over 230 oil wells on site,” he stated.
He pointed out that the current dispute revolves around accurately plotting verified coordinates onto Nigeria’s administrative map.
“This is a scientific endeavor. It involves marking coordinates on the map to delineate what belongs to Akwa Ibom and what belongs to Cross River,” he articulated.
While acknowledging that some wells may be situated within the Akwa Ibom territory, Lebo affirmed that Cross River is agreeable to accepting verified findings.
“We will acknowledge the wells that fall into Akwa Ibom. However, Akwa Ibom must also provide their recorded coordinates. This is a reconciliation procedure,” he indicated.
He reaffirmed that Cross River’s demands are clear and founded on evidence.
“If Akwa Ibom possesses the coordinates for the 76 oil wells mentioned by the Supreme Court, they should present them and adjust their figures accordingly. That is our position,” Lebo added.
He called for a decisive resolution, stating that the matter can no longer be brushed aside.
“At this juncture, we cannot shy away from this issue. It is imperative to see the coordinates and resolve this matter transparently,” he concluded.
Comments (0)
You must be logged in to comment.
Be the first to comment on this article!