In law, science, geology and maritime governance, evidence is the end of arguments. The ongoing national verification of oil well coordinates by federal agencies has been misconstrued in some quarters as an “overreach” against settled judicial decisions.
This framing is inaccurate. Cross River State’s oil-producing status does not depend on overturning any Supreme Court judgment. It is founded on fresh scientific evidence, constitutional mandates, petroleum sector laws, and unresolved maritime boundary demarcation after the 2002 ICJ judgment.
WHAT THE 2012 SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT DID – AND DID NOT DO.
The Supreme Court judgment in A.G. Cross River State v. A.G. Federation & A.G. Akwa Ibom State (2012) determined that Cross River, following the cession of Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon pursuant to the ICJ Judgment (2002) and the Green Tree Agreement, could not claim littoral status for offshore derivation purposes.
However, the Court did not:
Demarcate the Nigeria–Cameroon–Equatorial Guinea offshore maritime boundary;
Demarcate the internal maritime boundary between Cross River and Akwa Ibom;
Publish coordinates, OML numbers, host communities, or reservoir data for the disputed 76 oil wells;
Issue any perpetual injunction restraining future verification of oil well coordinates.
By contrast, in other derivation cases such as A.G. Rivers State v. A.G. Akwa Ibom State and A.G. Rivers State v. A.G. Imo State, the Supreme Court made specific consequential orders identifying oil wells, coordinates, OMLs and host communities.
The absence of such technical orders in the Cross River–Akwa Ibom case leaves a factual space for lawful verification by competent agencies.
The 2012 judgment related only to the then-disputed 76 oil wells and littoral access. It did not and cannot operate as a permanent legal shield against future discoveries, new wells, or updated coordinates.
BOUNDARY NON-DEMARCATION AND NIGERIA’S MARITIME ARCHITECTURE-SHAPE.
More than two decades after the ICJ judgment, Nigeria has not demarcated:
The offshore maritime boundary between Nigeria–Cameroon–Equatorial Guinea within the Cross River Estuary body of water;
The internal maritime boundary between Cross River and Akwa Ibom States.
This failure has direct fiscal and national security implications. The ICJ judgment created a new maritime architecture in the Cross River Estuary, retaining a Body of Water for Nigeria and a lawful navigational corridor into the Gulf of Guinea.
Allocation of offshore oil wells within this space cannot lawfully rest on provisional templates or outdated maps, but on updated hydrographic surveys and coordinates consistent with UNCLOS 1982 (domesticated by Nigeria).
RMAFC AND INTER-AGENCY Verification: ADMINISTRATIVE, NOT JUDICIAL. .
Under Paragraph 32, Part I, Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) is empowered to monitor revenue accruals and advise on derivation.
This constitutional mandate presupposes the verification of oil well coordinates.
The SURVEY CO-ORDINATION ACT (1962) vests the Office of the Surveyor-General of the Federation (OSGOF) with authority over geodetic surveys, while the National Boundary Commission (NBC) Act coordinates boundary processes.
The NIGERIAN UPSTREAM PETROLEUM REGULATORY COMMISSION (NUPRC), under the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021, maintains technical data on upstream operations, well locations and field development.
These agencies do not adjudicate disputes. They ascertain facts. The Supreme Court itself has affirmed the centrality of technical evidence in derivation matters in A.G. Federation v. A.G. Abia State (2001) and that administrative action must align with judicial determinations in RMAFC v. A.G. Rivers State (2022).
Verification of coordinates does not overturn a judgment; it supplies the facts upon which lawful derivation must rest.
ONSHORE/OFFSHORE DICHOTOMY AND PETROLEUM GOVERNANCE::
Nigeria abolished the onshore/offshore dichotomy following A.G. Federation v. A.G. Abia State (2001) and subsequent legislative measures.
The Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021 entrenches modern petroleum governance based on fields, wells, reservoirs and host communities, not outdated dichotomies.
Derivation under Section 162(2) of the Constitution flows from where petroleum is produced, as established by coordinates and reservoir continuity.
OIL-PRODUCING STATUS IS NOT DEFINED BY LITTORAL OR OFFSHORE STATUS.
Being a littoral state does not automatically confer oil-producing status. Ogun State is littoral yet not oil producing. Conversely, Anambra, Abia and Imo States are oil producing without offshore territories. Accordingly:
Cross River does not need to be a littoral state to be oil producing;
Cross River does not need an offshore territory to qualify as oil producing;
Cross River does not need a land or maritime boundary with Akwa Ibom to be oil producing:
Cross River does not need an OML Oil Mining Lease in its maritime Territory to be an oil producing state under Nigerian law.
Cross River State only needs confirmed and verifiable surface coordinates tied to Reservoir coordinates or continuity straddles extending into its territory from any OML.
Oil-producing status flows from verifiable hydrocarbon production within lawfully attributable territory, established by coordinates and geological data.
CONCLUSION.
All of Akwa Ibom State’s current derivation profile—now exceeding 2,000 oil wells—has itself been built and expanded through successive inter-agency verification exercises and reports since 2004. Those exercises were accepted when they worked in Akwa Ibom’s favour.
How Anyone can interprete the 2012 Supreme Court Judgment as a perpetual injunction restraining cross River State from being an oil producing state or owning oil wells derivation beyond the 76 oil wells is a scientific mystery, actually a Scientific Comedy.
It is therefore inconsistent, and legally untenable, to oppose the present Inter-Agency verification process simply because fresh coordinates may not align with older assumptions.
The 2012 Supreme Court judgment cannot be deployed as a MONITORING SPIRIT or MAGICAL INSTRUMENT hovering permanently over Nigeria’s upstream sector to block the verification of new oil well coordinates, new discoveries, and updated reservoir data only from cross River State territory is a 6G Error.
In the 2024 Inter Agency committee report cross River State produced 85 surface coordinates evidence, 67 confirmed for cross River and 18 for Akwa Ibom State.
In the 2025 Inter Agency committee report, cross River State produced 245 surface coordinates, all verified by the Committee. Assuming we automatically extract 76 oil wells in favour of the Supreme Court judgment coordinates, the result will be irrefutable.
So, will the Supreme Court judgment of 2012 be used to appropriate the entire 245 coordinates to Akwa Ibom State?
The judgment resolved a specific historical dispute over 76 oil wells and littoral access; it did not freeze geology in time, nor did it prohibit the constitutional agencies of the Federation from performing their statutory duties.
In a constitutional democracy, judicial finality coexists with scientific progress. Nigeria’s derivation system can only remain credible if it is anchored on current, verifiable coordinates and reservoir continuity, not on fear of evidence.
Cross River State’s oil-producing status, grounded in law, science and maritime reality, is therefore not a threat to federal order—it is an affirmation of it.
Lebo, former Speaker of the Cross River State House of Assembly, is presently part of the Cross River State Economic Intelligence Team.
