The Cross River State Consultative Forum, CRSCF, has faulted the description of Cross River State as a landlocked or non-littoral state, arguing that the 2012 Supreme Court judgment on the state’s offshore oil wells did not erase its physical maritime geography.
The Forum, in a statement signed by its Chairman, Hon. Barr. Eyo Nsa Ekpo, and Secretary, Dr. Julius Ochim Okputu, said the Supreme Court judgment dealt with the legal consequences of the loss of Bakassi and the attribution of offshore oil wells for derivation purposes, rather than altering the physical geography of the state.
The statement was issued in response to remarks attributed to Senate President, Senator Godswill Akpabio, at the 39th anniversary celebration of Akwa Ibom State, where Cross River was reportedly described as a non-littoral and landlocked state.
According to the CRSCF, the distinction between legal status for revenue allocation and physical geography was critical to understanding the continuing controversy over Cross River’s maritime status.
“Political and judicial determinations about oil-revenue entitlement after the loss of Bakassi do not rewrite the physical fact that Cross River retains estuarine and coastal access to the Atlantic,” the Forum said.
The Supreme Court, in its July 10, 2012 judgment in Attorney-General of Cross River State v. Attorney-General of the Federation and another, held that Cross River was no longer a littoral state following the implementation of the International Court of Justice judgment on the Nigeria-Cameroon boundary and the ceding of Bakassi to Cameroon.
The apex court consequently rejected Cross River’s claim to derivation revenue from 76 offshore oil wells, holding that a littoral state must abut the sea and possess maritime territory within which offshore oil wells could be attributed.
However, the CRSCF argued that the judgment should not be interpreted as having physically removed the Cross River estuary or altered the state’s natural geographical relationship with the Atlantic Ocean.
The Forum said Cross River’s estuarine system remained connected to the Atlantic and that Calabar and its surrounding waterways continued to form part of Nigeria’s eastern maritime environment.
It also cited the presence of the Eastern Naval Command of the Nigerian Navy in Calabar and the state’s longstanding maritime and navigational infrastructure as practical evidence of the strategic maritime character of the Cross River environment.
The CRSCF further argued that the legal dispute over offshore oil wells should be distinguished from questions concerning physical geography, hydrography and the underlying geological structure of petroleum-bearing areas.
It maintained that oil wells were located on the basis of geological and geographical coordinates and not simply by reference to the flow of rivers or the political description of a state.
The Forum also pointed to ongoing technical and scientific exercises concerning Cross River’s maritime claims, including hydrographic and geophysical surveys associated with the proposed Bakassi Deep Seaport and other federal inter-agency exercises.
According to the CRSCF, subsequent technical investigations have kept the question of Cross River’s littoral status and offshore oil-well attribution under active consideration.
The Forum said reports from different periods had produced varying figures concerning oil wells associated with Cross River, citing 76 wells in a 2004 presidential committee report, 67 in a 2024 inter-agency report and 119 in a 2025 inter-agency report.
It argued that the conflicting figures reinforced the need for further scientific verification and an evidence-based resolution rather than treating the 2012 judgment as having ended every aspect of the dispute.
The CRSCF said Cross River had facilitated scientific, hydrographic, geological and maritime exercises in pursuit of a resolution and that Governor Bassey Edet Otu had presented relevant evidence to the Federal Government.
It added that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu had subsequently mandated the Senate President to facilitate an amicable resolution of the matter, while Cross River and Akwa Ibom had engaged in consultations and constituted a joint subcommittee.
The Forum therefore urged stakeholders to distinguish between the Supreme Court’s determination on Cross River’s entitlement to derivation from offshore oil wells and the broader geographical question of the state’s relationship with the sea.
“Boundary judgments determine jurisdictional limits; they do not rewrite the geology, estuaries or natural architecture of the Nigerian continental shelf,” the statement said.
The CRSCF also called for the matter to be resolved through evidence, law and technical verification, rather than political rhetoric.
It said Cross River and Akwa Ibom remained neighbouring states with shared historical and cultural ties and that their differences over maritime resources should not undermine cooperation.
The Forum urged Akpabio, who served as governor of Akwa Ibom State from 2007 to 2015, to facilitate what it described as a timely and just resolution of the dispute.
It said good neighbourliness and parliamentary courtesy should not substitute for accurate geography, historical evidence and equitable treatment in matters concerning the state’s resources.
The Forum concluded that its position was not aimed at creating conflict with Akwa Ibom but at ensuring that Cross River’s claims were subjected to appropriate scientific, legal and institutional scrutiny.
“Cross River and Akwa Ibom share history, culture, and destiny as South-South neighbours. Productive cooperation is possible and desirable. It must, however, rest on facts rather than convenient narratives,” the CRSCF said.
