In Law it is correct to say that the Judgment of the Nigerian Supreme Court is FINAL .
However, where a Judgment was procured by error of Facts, misrepresentation of critical information and data, the court inclusive of the Supreme Court has the powers and duty to overule itself.
The decision of the Supreme Court over the 76 oil wells has become impossible to implement over time due to error of Facts, misrepresentation of critical informations and changing existing circumstances relied upon to deliver the Judgment in favour of Akwa Ibom state.
1. The Government of Cameroon filed a case at the international Court of Justice ICJ against Nigeria in 1994 claiming ownership of the Bakassi peninsular in Cross River State.
2.As build up to the ICJ Case ,Gen Sanni Abacha created Bakassi Local Government out of the Southern and Western Portion of the Atlantic Ocean with Cameroon to the East.
3. The ICJ delivered it’s Judgment in 2002 ceding the Southern portion of the Bakassi peninsular to Cameroon leaving out western Bakassi out of the Judgment in Nigeria.
One of the critical reasons why Nigeria lost the southern portion of the Bakassi peninsular to Cameroon was because Nigeria did not reflect Bakassi peninsular map in the map of Nigeria prior to 1994 when Cameroon filed the Case at the ICJ. The subsequent attempt was seen as an after-thought.
4. The entire jurisdictional map of the Cameroon claim and ICJ judgment covered 2,200 kilometers spanning from the Land boundary at the Lake Chad Region upto the Bakassi peninsular maritime boundary.
While the dispute with Cameroon in northern Nigeria was about land boundary in the south in Bakassi peninsular it involved maritime boundary.
5. The injustice against cross River State actually began with the implementation of the ICJ judgment by Nigeria.
For instance, While Nigeria negotiated and made gain in the land boundary dermacation in the Northern Nigeria Lake chad region, it lost massive maritime territory in Bakassi peninsular.
5. The ICJ judgment specifically gave out southern Bakassi to Cameroon leaving Western Bakassi in Nigeria, the geological and hydrological survey prior and after the ICJ judgment located the 76 oil wells in Western Bakassi to cross River State and 85 oil wells for Rivers state.
6. The ICJ judgment was only implemented by the Signing of the Green Tree Agreement GTA in 2008, where Nigeria and Cameroon set up the structures for the handover of Southern Bakassi peninsular to Cameroon and initiated the Joint Boundary dermacation committee between Cameroon and Nigeria called the CNMC Cameroon Nigeria Mixed Commission.
Among others things the committee wss saddled with the responsibility to map out the land and maritime boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon by virtue of the ICJ judgment.
7. While the committee was even yet to dermacate the actual boundary line and map the territories belonging to Nigeria and Cameroon over Bakassi and Lake Chad, the federal government through the National boundary commission and Revenue Mobilisation and Fiscal Commission, hurriedly took steps and awarded the 76 oil wells located in western Bakassi to Akwa Ibom state as well as the 86 oil wells belonging to Rivers state.
8. To arrive at the decision to allocate the 76 oil wells in Western Bakassi to Akwa Ibom, the then Attorney General of the Federation who later became personal Lawyer to Akwa Ibom, the Federal ministry of justice, national boundary Commission and other federal agencies, carried out a hasty theoretical interpretation of the ICJ judgment and lose of Southern Bakassi to Cameroon and concluded that Cross River State was no longer a litoral state having been cut off or HEMMED-IN off the Atlantic Ocean and therefore does not have land coastal boundary into the Atlantic Ocean.
Therefore, in their understanding Akwa Ibom State immediately replaced cross River State location in front of the Atlantic Ocean by virtue of the ICJ judgment and became an automatic beneficiary of the 76 oil wells .
9. The layman’s understanding of the interpretation is that, Nigeria lost southern Bakassi peninsular to Cameroon,
Cross River State became the direct hit of the consequence of the judgment against Nigeria by the ICJ, but Nigeria gained western Bakassi out of the Judgment and instead of Cross River State to benefit from western Bakassi, Nigeria punished cross River further by ceding the 76 oil wells to Akwa Ibom.
10. It is the above injustice against Cross River State that compeled the State and Rivers state to approach the Supreme Court to claim the oil wells in Western Bakassi.
Rather than the Supreme Court to determine that Cross River State should remain the beneficial owner of the 76 oil wells pending the dermacation of the maritime boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon.
The Supreme Court held that once the Green Tree Agreement GTA was signed in 2007 and Bakassi peninsular was handed over to Cameroon in 2008, Cross River State ceased to become a Litoral state having no access or coastal boundary into the Atlantic Ocean.
Rivers State however got her 85 oil wells back.
11. It is to cross River State credit that the Supreme Court ignored the report of the Nigerian Navy hydrological survey of 2002 Submitted to the federal government through the National boundary commission which clearly showed that despite the ICJ judgment over southern Bakassi peninsular cross River State still had substantial coastal maritime boundary access to the Atlantic Ocean by virtue of the provisions of state LOS Law of the Sea article 7 of 1994.
12. Cross River State still has legal and substantial claim to ownership of western Bakassi and the 76 oil wells over Akwa Ibom state.
This is because one of cross River vital arguments at the Supreme Court was that, after the hasty hand over of the Bakassi peninsular in 2008, it was going to take over 20 years to conclude the maritime boundary dermacation between Nigeria and Cameroon and only at the conclusion of that process will anyone determine whether cross River State was HEMMED-IN OFF the Atlantic Ocean.
13. Behold 17 years after the Bakassi was handed over to Cameroon, the joint mixed commission CNMC has only done 70% of the maritime boundary dermacation.
Infact 99 kilometers of the boundary has not be resolved.
So, how did Nigeria hurriedly conclude that Cross River State is not a Litoral state while the ICJ judgment is still been detmacated and Nigeria has already made maritime territory gains over the 2,000 kilometers so far dermacated.
14. Cross River State therefore has a substantial legal claim to the 76 oil wells by virtue of the New environmental indices, maritime boundary coordinates coming out of the various careful and detailed dermacation of the ICJ judgment where Nigeria is represented by the same agencies that hurriedly contrived narrative against Cross River in 2012.
15. The claim by Akwa Ibom of a portion of the Bakassi peninsular that the ICJ never ceded to Cameroon, lured by the sole intention to take possession of the inherent oil wells will not stand the test of history.
Even though the judgment of Supreme Court is final, the continued erroneous implementation of the ICJ judgment cannot be ignored.
A hurriedly assembled Literature of the impression of the decision of a Court will crumble when the vital statistics and credible data emerges.
Indeed it is a monent of Epiphany.
16. The New emerging facts of reality is not convertible for Cross River State, it is to the overall benefit of Nigeria far beyond the 76 oil wells.
For instance, While the CNMC committee is working in the last 17 years,
Nigeria has benefitted from the expansion of its EEZ Exclusive Economic Zones extending its maritime boundary from 200 Nautical miles 220 in 2021 upto over 370 in 2023 under (UNCLOS) UN Convention on Law of The Sea including its maritime boundary with Cameroon.
As Nigerian maritime territory extends deeper into the High Sea, it will have implications on its coastal boundary lines especially in western Bakassi.
17. While Akwa Ibom State’s claim over western Bakassi is basically about the oil wells, Cross River State Claim is over it’s Territory in western Bakassi and the welfare of it’s inhabitants.
Infact, the past and present cross River State claim before the Supreme Court and currently with International Committte on the maritime boundary dermacation is wholly accepted that the undisputed portion or any portion of the Bakassi peninsular that was not ceded by the ICJ to Cameroon (as it is now obvious) from the dermacation exercise, belongs to Bakassi Local Government in cross River State.
The Nigerian Constitution, and Laws of the Federation still recognize Bakassi as part of Cross River State and no one is in doubt .
Therefore, let the oil wells be returned to the owner of the Territory.
18. The judgment of the Supreme Court can be set altered and corrected or amended and the court can overule itself based on
New legislation, Constitutional Amendment New overriding circumstances or if they are fresh Critical, credible and reliable facts and data which were not made available to the court at the point of judgment.
However, certain administrative steps and informations are required to be put in place by the relevant authorities as build up to that objective .
It expected that the beneficiaries of the injustice will panic and complain when the process to cure the injustice begins.
Lebo, is a lawyer and former Speaker of the Cross River State House of Assembly.
I have in my research come out with this contributions about the thoughts provoking article of Rt. Hon. Barr. John Gaul Lebo.
The dispute over the 76 Oil Wells between Cross River and Akwa Ibom States which centers on the interpretation of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment and the subsequent Supreme Court ruling, would have rather exhausted available political options, than judicial.
In any case, here’s a breakdown of the key points as it concerns this subject matter:
1. The ICJ Judgment: The ICJ judgment in 2002 ceded the Southern portion of the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon, but Western Bakassi remained in Nigeria. The judgment covered a 2,200-kilometer jurisdictional map, including land and maritime boundaries.
2. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Akwa Ibom State in 2012, stating that Cross River State ceased to be a littoral state after the Bakassi Peninsula was handed over to Cameroon in 2008. However, Cross River State argues that the court’s decision was based on incomplete information and that the State still has substantial coastal maritime boundary access to the Atlantic Ocean.
3. Maritime Boundary Demarcation: The Nigeria-Cameroon Mixed Commission (CNMC) has made progress in demarcating the maritime boundary, but 99 kilometers remain unresolved. This ongoing process may impact the ownership of the 76 oil wells.
4. New Evidence and Claims: Cross River State claims that new environmental indices and maritime boundary coordinates emerging from the demarcation process support its ownership of the oil wells. The state also argues that it has a substantial legal claim to the wells based on the Nigerian Constitution and laws, which recognize Bakassi as part of Cross River State.
Given these developments, it’s possible that:
? The Supreme Court’s judgment may be revisited: Based on new evidence and changing circumstances, the Supreme Court could reconsider its decision, potentially altering the ownership of the 76 oil wells.
? The ongoing demarcation process will be crucial: The outcome of the maritime boundary demarcation will likely have significant implications for the dispute over the oil wells.
? Cross River State’s claims may gain traction: As new evidence emerges, Cross River State’s arguments may become more compelling, potentially leading to a reevaluation of the oil wells’ ownership.
Some notable facts that support Cross River State’s claim include the following:
– Presence of Oil wells in Cross River State: Over 30 Oil Wells have been identified in Ikot Offiong Community, Cross River State, which were capped by Shell Petroleum in the 1950s.
– Crude oil deposits in Northern Cross River: The state government has announced the presence of commercial quantities of crude oil reserves in the northern part of the state.
– Ongoing efforts to reclaim the oil wells: The Cross River State government has expressed commitment to regaining the 76 oil wells, citing the State’s rightful ownership and the potential benefits for its inhabitants. Of course the main reason why the 76 Oil Wells should be returned to Cross River State, is simply because the part of Bakassi that according ICJ judgement belongs to Nigeria, is lying in the territory of Cross River State, hence the reason why the Supreme Court should re-consider its previous position.
©Elemi Alaga,
Political Analyst, and Former Leader of ABI Legislative Council, Cross River State.
This are pure facts and thorough research my leader and following due demarcation and boundaries laws and acts, the said oil well Will and is a legal right of Cross River State.
We await justice and believe we will get it.
Thanks a lot my leader for your great input on this matter.
This is what true Cross River son’s and daughters should do.
Let’s amplify our voices until we are heard.
This certainly throws more light on the issue of the 76 oil wells. We in Cross River State cannot be denied our rights. Time will vindicate the state.