Beyond Bakassi: Renewed Debate Over Offshore Oil Wells Rekindles Cross River’s Claim to Oil-Producing Status

Long after the Bakassi judgment, fresh legal and technical questions are emerging, raising doubts about whether Cross River State was fairly stripped of its oil-producing status. Writes Wale Igbintade

Over 20 years after the International Court of Justice (ICJ),  settled the Bakassi Peninsula dispute, fresh legal and technical questions are emerging over the ownership of offshore oil wells, raising concerns whether Cross River State was unjustly excluded from Nigeria’s oil-producing states due to flawed boundary interpretations and incomplete technical assessments

While the 2002 ICJ ruling settled the territorial dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon, it also triggered a chain of domestic legal and administrative decisions that continue to shape the distribution of oil wealth in Nigeria’s coastal region.

At the centre of the controversy is the ownership of 76 offshore oil wells, which became the subject of litigation before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

In its judgment, the apex court relied heavily on hydrographic data and maritime boundary reports prepared by federal agencies. Based on these technical submissions, the court concluded that the disputed wells were located within maritime territory attributed to Akwa Ibom State.

The decision led to the removal of Cross River from the list of oil-producing states, effectively denying it access to derivation revenue under Nigeria’s revenue allocation framework. However, more than a decade after that judgement, a growing body of legal, technical and community-based arguments suggests that the matter may not be as conclusively settled as it appears.

Central to this position is the contention that the Supreme Court judgment was limited in scope, addressing only the specific 76 offshore wells presented before it, and not the entirety of hydrocarbon resources potentially located within Cross River’s maritime and coastal domain.

Analysts argue that reliance on earlier hydrographic data, much of which predated advances in geospatial mapping and offshore delineation technologies, raises legitimate questions about the accuracy of the boundary determinations used in the case. As such, there are increasing calls for a fresh technical review of offshore oil well coordinates using modern mapping tools.

This argument is reinforced by claims that additional oil wells, estimated in some quarters at about 67, may exist within onshore and nearshore formations located in areas such as the Ikang mangrove zone, Western Bakassi and the Calabar estuary. These locations remain firmly within Nigerian territory and are historically associated with Cross River State.

Geologically, these formations are linked to the Cross River Basin, also known as the Calabar Flank, a sedimentary structure widely recognised as part of the hydrocarbon-rich Gulf of Guinea system. Exploration activities in this basin date back to the 1950s, when multinational oil companies first drilled exploratory wells across southeastern Nigeria.

Although early exploration yielded limited commercial success, advances in drilling technology and renewed global interest in frontier basins have revived attention on the Calabar Flank. Industry presence in the area has remained consistent over the years. Notably, Moni Pulo Limited operates Oil Mining Lease 114 near the mouth of the Calabar River, where oil was discovered in 1990 and production commenced in 1999. 

This development is frequently cited as evidence that commercially viable hydrocarbon deposits exist within zones historically linked to Cross River.

Beyond geological considerations, a critical dimension of the debate centres on the status of the western portion of the Bakassi Peninsula that was not ceded to Cameroon. Community stakeholders maintain that several islands in this axis, including Dayspring 1, Abana, Dayspring 2 and Kwa Island, remain within Nigeria’s territorial jurisdiction and are administered by Cross River State.

This position is supported by administrative realities. The Independent National Electoral Commission has delineated electoral wards and polling units in these areas, with elections conducted there consistently since 2011. Such continued governmental presence, stakeholders argue, underscores Cross River’s enduring littoral status and its legitimate access to the Gulf of Guinea.

Legal analysts further point to the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which governs maritime boundaries and coastal entitlements. Under UNCLOS, the configuration of coastlines and proximity to maritime zones play a critical role in determining rights over offshore resources.

Applying these principles, some experts contend that Cross River’s coastal geography and the existence of unceded Bakassi territories could justify a reassessment of its maritime claims. Questions have also been raised about the role of federal institutions responsible for boundary demarcation and petroleum regulation, particularly the National Boundary Commission and the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission.

Critics argue that inconsistencies in mapping exercises, as well as delays in implementing aspects of the 2012 Supreme Court directives relating to coordinate verification, may have contributed to the current dispute.

In addition to legal and technical concerns, the issue has taken on a socio-economic dimension. Community leaders in Bakassi have expressed dissatisfaction over what they describe as the misallocation of benefits intended for host communities under the Petroleum Industry Act 2021.

Particular attention has been drawn to the Abana Host Communities Development Trust, with allegations that it has been improperly linked to communities outside Cross River State.

Such concerns have heightened feelings of marginalisation among residents of Bakassi, who argue that they continue to bear the environmental and social impacts of offshore oil operations without corresponding economic benefits.

Observers warn that failure to address these grievances could pose risks to peace and stability in the region, especially given the strategic importance of the Gulf of Guinea to Nigeria’s oil production.

At the constitutional level, the dispute highlights a delicate balance between federal ownership of natural resources and the rights of states to benefit from resources located within their territories. While Section 44(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria vests ownership of all minerals in the Federal Government, Section 162(2) guarantees derivation revenue to oil-producing states.

The challenge, therefore, lies in accurately determining which state qualifies as a resource-producing entity. For Cross River State, the consequences of its exclusion have been profound. The loss of derivation revenue has significantly impacted its fiscal capacity, limiting its ability to fund infrastructure and development projects.

In contrast, Akwa Ibom State continues to benefit substantially from offshore oil production, reinforcing its position as one of Nigeria’s leading oil-producing states. Against this backdrop, the renewed calls for a technical and legal reassessment of offshore oil well locations appear less like a challenge to established authority and more like an attempt to correct what stakeholders perceive as historical and administrative inaccuracies.

Proponents insist that such a review is necessary not only for equity but also for maintaining public trust in Nigeria’s resource governance framework.

Ultimately, the Bakassi question has evolved into a broader test of Nigeria’s ability to reconcile international obligations, constitutional provisions and local realities. As new data emerges and stakeholder advocacy intensifies, the debate over offshore oil wells in the Gulf of Guinea is likely to remain a defining issue in the politics of resource control.

For Cross River, the path forward may lie not in revisiting old conflicts, but in pursuing a fact-based reassessment that aligns legal outcomes with present-day technical realities.

Whether such efforts will succeed remains uncertain, but what is clear is that the story of Bakassi, far from being settled, continues to unfold in ways that could reshape the economic future of Nigeria’s coastal states.

Ultimately, the Bakassi dispute has evolved beyond a settled international boundary issue into an ongoing test of Nigeria’s commitment to fairness in resource governance.

For Cross River State, the path forward lies not in reopening old territorial conflicts, but in pursuing a transparent, fact-based reassessment of offshore oil well locations. Whether through fresh technical reviews or policy intervention, the resolution of this lingering controversy will be crucial in ensuring that legal outcomes reflect present-day realities and that no state is unjustly excluded from its rightful economic benefits.