Government
Position on Return of Akwa Ibom Oil Wells
The inception of the present Akwa Ibom State administration in May 2007 was met
with a regrettable denial of derivation revenue from 332 oil wells originally
belonging to the State. In seeking equity for the people of Akwa Ibom State, the
State Government approached the Federal Government armed with Supreme Court
rulings and generally understood delineation principles for interpretation,
explanations, and restitution of the denied oil wells.
The Federal Government was graciously disposed to deal fairly in line with its
policy of due process, justice, equity, and rule of law, to yield to established
legal precedents set by the Supreme Court and the International Court of Justice
(ICJ).
The President is reported to have referred the State Government's request to the
National boundary Commission (NBC) with a directive to carry out comprehensive
consultation with the National Planning Commission (NPC) and Ministry of Energy
(Petroleum).
The outcome of the consultation is the gracious return of 247 oil wells, being
171 from Rivers and 76 from Cross River State, of the 332 oil wells belonging to
Akwa Ibom State and the beginning of true derivation revenue based on the actual
oil wells credited to the state.
The settlement of issues, disputes, and derivation based on oil wells ordinarily
is on the exclusive list of the Federal Government. However, insinuations have
been made in certain quarters erroneously suggesting that Akwa Ibom State is
enjoying undue derivation from oil wells which ought to be credited to other
states. This has resulted in unnecessary propaganda and heating up the polity
which ought not to be had the propagandists exercised fairness in relaying the
underlying facts of the matter.
|
|
The creation of Akwa Ibom State in 1987 brought with it the potentials for the
development of vast oil fields, most of which were reserved in the sea. These
were the OML12, OML13, OPL 14, and OPL452 oil fields as well as the Qua Iboe
Terminal controlling mainly offshore oilfields comprising OML 67, OML 68, OML
69, OML 70 and OPL 94 on Mobil concession with OML 99, OML 100, OML 101, and OML
102 on ELF concession while OPL 92 and OPL 98 were on Ashland concession. The
Federal Government in creating these oilfields even before the creation of Akwa
Ibom was mindful not to encroach into territories that may otherwise be
considered foreign as persistent border crisis with Cameroon Republic and
dispute over the ownership of the Bakassi Peninsula were not unconnected with
oil deposits which lie across the Nigeria- Cameroon international maritime
boundary.
|
|
|
Articles |
| Jun, 3 2010: 23 Years Later, IBB Justifies Creation of Akwa Ibom...more | | Apr, 8 2010: Crude Oil Discovery Responsible for Oil Palm Neglect - Akpabio
...more | | Mar, 1 2010: Akwa Ibom to Supply Gas to IPP, RUSAL, and ALSCON...more | | Feb, 4 2010: Oil Wells: Akwa Ibom Triumphs Over Rivers...more | | Jan, 26 2010: Oil Wells: Court Throws Out Rivers` Suit Against Akwa Ibom ...more | | Oct, 5 2009: NNPC needs N462b for gas projects...more | | Aug, 22 2009: A’Ibom, Cross River to Constitute Committee on Oil Wells...more | | Aug, 19 2009: Akpabio Advocates Removal of Rem Fund From PIB...more | | Aug, 10 2009: Revealed:How Isemin Raised AK Oil Revenue ... Lost Power 3 Months Later...more | | Aug, 8 2009: Akpabio Seeks Amendment to Petroleum Bill...more |
|
Expectations and Moving Forward
The Government of Akwa Ibom State reiterates that but for the arbitrary
expropriation of our oil wells in year 2004/2005; there would have been no
dispute today between our neighbouring States. What the NBC and the RMAFC have
done is that they have returned to the path of fairness and justice by giving
back to Akwa Ibom State, oil wells that legally belong to her.
We express our gratitude to Mr. President for taking steps to redress the
injustice that Akwa Ibom State had to live with for the past years. We accept
the new delineation presented by the NBC on Tuesday 9th June 2009 in so far as
it is believed to represent fairness without sentiments. We would have been
happier if we had all our 256 oil wells on the Rivers State flank. We also
commend President Umaru Musa Yar’adua for doing holistic justice by ensuring the
return of about 68 oil wells (which were also wrongly expropriated to Rivers
State) to Abia State.
We call on states to on the basis of truthfulness, sincerity and justice, hand
over such oil wells to the state that they belong. In the interest of justice a
lien needs to be honoured over stated amounts from derivation and workings to
the extent of excess crude figures in favour of Akwa Ibom State from Rivers and
Cross River States in view of the underdevelopment these states have denied the
Akwa Ibom State.
Akwa Ibom people believe that the current efforts at rebranding Nigeria shall be
successful where the Nation’s leadership continues to adhere to the principles
of the Rule of Law, Justice, and Equity.
Akwa Ibom State administration will be alert to her responsibility by ensuring
that state resources and resources meant for the economic stability of the
people of the state is no longer mortgaged in this way as the transfer or our
oil wells to neighbouring states.
|
|
 |
|
|
Historical Development
Petroleum exploration in what is now Akwa Ibom commenced in the early fifties
even before the first commercial oil discovery in Nigeria was made at Oloibiri
near Port Harcourt in 1956. Production from Akwa Ibom offshore came on stream in
1970. Realising the enormous revenue the Federal government in 1971 introduced
the onshore-offshore dichotomy in petroleum revenue sharing.
Crude oil production in Akwa Ibom was mainly offshore, the largest in Nigeria.
The state received very little from the federation account as the offshore
oilfields were more economically viable than onshore oil fields leaving the
state with very little development in spite of its enormous contribution to
national wealth. It was only until 1987 when President Ibrahim Babangida
empanelled an AFRC committee to recommend an effective method of disbursing
funds to oil producing states. This led in 1992 to the establishment of the Oil
Mineral Producing Areas Development Commission (OMPADEC) to manage 3.5 per cent
share from the federation account.
Also in 1992, due to the perseverance of the administration of Governor Obong
Akpan Isemin, President Babangida took the final redeeming step of abrogating
the onshore-offshore dichotomy which immediately placed Akwa Ibom as the third
largest petroleum producing state in the federation and revenue accruing to the
state became based on 18 percent production rather than 0.56 percent when only
onshore oil was used.
|
Geographic Considerations
The Nigerian states of Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Delta, Bayelsa, Rivers, Akwa Ibom, and
Cross River placed in that order from the south west of Nigeria on the border
with the Republic of Benin, to the south east border with the Republic of
Cameroon are coastal states. Apart from Cross River State, these states open
directly to and have contiguity with the sea and are geographically and
technically accorded a 'littoral' status in relation to offshore oil wells.
Geographic contiguity entitles states to lay claim to resources on maritime
territory and in this case, for the attribution of revenue from oil resources to
littoral states, accruable from the federation account.
The Supreme Court maintains that there are 7 littoral states in Nigeria with
coastal regions that open directly to the sea and therefore contiguous. Relating
to Akwa Ibom, there are further geographical considerations which include
the Bakassi Peninsula and an estuary besides the coastal areas.
On Bakassi, the isthmus of the peninsula does not originate from Nigerian territory and
had understandably been a source of dispute for decades resulting in loss of
lives. The estuary adjacent the Bakassi peninsula is an emptying of the Cross
River which is boundary water shared by both Akwa Ibom and Cross River
States. Akwa Ibom State has a 128Km coastal stretch all having contiguity and
connectivity with the sea. Cross River State on the other hand has no coastal
area having contiguity with the sea and cannot lay claim to offshore oil wells,
its connectivity to the sea however crosses maritime territory of Akwa Ibom
State and Cameroon, thereby wiping off any claim to offshore oil wells.
|
Legal Issues
Several efforts by Akwa Ibom State at seeking redress through written complaints
were made without tangible results, till the intervention by the current
President, Alhaji Umaru Musa Yar’Adua who directed that the various complaints
from all the States be examined and addressed based on the principle of the rule
of law and devoid of sentiments. In a case instituted by Cross River State
itself, the Supreme Court delivered judgment on 24th June 2005 rejecting the
claim of Cross River State for administrative control over the maritime area
within which those oil wells were believed to be located. The non-littoral
status of Cross River State was further confirmed vide judgement of 24/06/2005
in a case instituted by Cross River State itself.
The Supreme Court pronounced that the decision of January 2005 to transfer 76
oil wells which has always belonged to Akwa Ibom State to Cross River State was
made at a time the prevailing issues were awaiting judicial decision.
The purported transfer of the 76 oil wells from Akwa Ibom State to Cross River
State was based on a faulty assumption that Cross River State shall access the
sea through the administration of Western Bakassi.
In October 2002, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled the ownership of
the Bakassi peninsula in favour of Cameroon; this was followed by the Greentree
agreement. In the agreement, Nigeria recognised the sovereignty of Cameroon over
the Bakassi Peninsula in accordance with the judgment of the ICJ and committed
itself to the land and maritime boundary as delineated by the ICJ. Complete
handover of Bakassi was made in October, 2008.
Before the April 2002 Supreme Court judgment and the promulgation of the
offshore /onshore Dichotomy Abrogation Act 2004, revenue from oil resources was
shared to the States on the basis of about 1% derivation. At this time also,
there was no dispute whatsoever on the ownership/attribution of oil wells to
Akwa Ibom State in relation to her neighbouring states of Rivers and Cross
River.
|
 |
 |
 |
|
The Bakassi peninsula. Now a cameroonian territory extends an international boundary
into the estuary across to Akwa Ibom State |
The estuary that keeps the coast of Cross River 'helmed in' and 'land licked' as
a result of Cameroon now in complete control of Bakassi |
Akwa Ibom's 128Km coastal stretch is contigous with, and even the eastern side connects
to, the sea making for a littoral status (images from Google Earth) |
The Bakassi Penisula
The geographic location of Cross River State negates its classification as a
littoral State except with her possible assurance of contiguity through
administrative control of the western part of the Bakassi Peninsular.
Pronouncements to this effect as they relate to oil wells between Akwa Ibom and
Cross River States were made only in January 24th 2005 vide letter Ref
NBC.SEC.28/I/142.
Cross River State had been erroneously considered littoral
only on this assumption of Bakassi being a part of the state. On this assumption
alone, it had been excessively enjoying benefits from oil resources which would
even with this assumption; still geometrically belong to Akwa Ibom State. This
error had been on since November 2004 when the offshore/onshore Dichotomy
Abrogation Act 2004 came to effect and continued despite the fact that the very
assumption, upon which this claim was based, was never and never came to be.
Granting but not conceding that this was right, the geometry that created a
maritime corridor for Cross River State through Bakassi at the expense of Akwa
Ibom State remained unexplainable till this day as it violated all known
principles of maritime delineation.
Even if the western part of the Bakassi
Peninsula is today handed over to Cross River State, the median of the cross
river would first intersect at the baseline (joining the Akwa Ibom coast near
Okposo, and the one at the south western tip of the Peninsula).
Applying either
the principle of equidistance, bisector , or normal to the general direction of
the baseline in extending the line seawards would still leave the 76 wells
falling on the west of the line, that is to say, in Akwa Ibom State rather than
Cross River.
|
Estuarine Considerations
Prior to the ICJ ruling of 2002 Nigeria had full and complete sovereignty and
exclusive jurisdiction over the estuary that opens into the sea through a border
river flowing on the borders of Akwa Ibom and Cross River.
The impact of the ICJ ruling was to the effect that the June 24, 2005 judgment
by the Supreme Court reads, "the effect of the judgment of the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) dated 10/10/2002 on the land and maritime boundary case
between Nigeria and Cameroon is that it has wiped out what used to be the
estuarine sector of Cross River State as a result of which the State is hemmed
in by the new international boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon."
"That being the case, there seems to be no longer any estuarine boundary between
Akwa Ibom State and Cross River State. If the 'median line' or 'thalweg'
principle is adopted drawing the boundary line along the Cross River between
Akwa Ibom and Cross River States, the line must intersect the new maritime line
between Nigeria and Cameroon with the result that Cross River no longer has a
seaward boundary."
"The riparian territory of Cross River State is truncated at the intersection of
the 'Maroua Line' with the median of the Cross River. This is several nautical
miles from the sea."
The estuary leaves Cross River State helmed in and land locked without any
contiguity to the sea but only connectivity to the sea through Akwa Ibom and
Cameroonian waters.
The illegal hand over of our oil wells to neighbouring states was based on an
assumption that the administration of the western part of the Bakassi Peninsula
would be in the hands of Nigeria, a situation presumed to offer Cross River
State littoral possibilities as a result of the western part of Bakassi being
contiguous to the sea. However, this was yet to be judicially decided, even from
2004 when the illegal transfers of our oil wells were made.
|
Coastal Considerations
A state that has a coastal boundary also possesses certain areas of the sea.
Sovereignty over bodies of water is regulated by four separate 1958 conventions
- the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, the Convention on
the Continental Shelf, the Convention on the High Seas, and the Geneva
Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas
- and by the comprehensive Law of the Sea treaty or UNCLOS (United Nations'
Convention on the Laws of the Sea) Law of 1982, which entered into force in 1994
and to which Nigeria is a signatory.
According to the law of the sea, beyond its territorial waters, every coastal
country may establish an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) extending 200 nautical
miles (370 km) from shore. Within the EEZ the coastal state has the right to
exploit and regulate fisheries, construct artificial islands and installations,
use the zone for other economic purposes, and regulate scientific research by
foreign vessels.
Every coastal country has
exclusive rights to the oil, gas, and other resources in the seabed up to 200
nautical miles from shore or to the outer edge of the continental margin,
whichever is the further, subject to an overall limit of 350 nautical miles (650
km) from the coast or 100 nautical miles (185 km) beyond the 2,500 meter
isobath. Legally, this area is known as the continental shelf. Where the
territorial waters, EEZs, or continental shelves of neighbouring countries
overlap, a boundary line must be drawn by agreement to achieve an equitable
solution. Many such boundaries have been agreed upon, but in some cases when the
countries have been unable to reach agreement the boundary has been determined
by the ICJ or by an arbitration tribunal. The most common form of boundary is an
equidistance line between the coasts concerned.
While Nigeria enjoys maritime resources up to 2,500 meter isobath continental
shelf, littoral states however are entitled to a share of oil resources at 13%
derivation up to the 200 meter isobath. Due to the flash point potentials on
the issue of Bakassi Nigeria had been mindful of exploration activities close to
the coast of Bakassi peninsula and therefore do not own oil wells 200 meter
isobath off Bakassi peninsula.
Article 7(3) of the Law of the sea provides for
drawing baselines in the general direction of the coast. While this was adhered
to in all the applicable cases to other littoral states, Akwa Ibom did not
receive the same consideration.
|
Transfer of Oil Wells to Neighbouring States
Upon abrogation of the Offshore /Onshore Dichotomy in 2004, the NBC altered the maritime delineations between the
baseline/coastlines of the littoral states and the 200 meter isobath that
remained a surprising shock to Akwa Ibom State in favour of Cross River and
Rivers States.
The NBC which carried out the exercise produced various maps that were examined
but showed skewed, distorted and non perpendicular lines to coastal planes that
arbitrarily transferred oil wells originally belonging to Akwa Ibom to
neighbouring States of Rivers and Cross River without explanations even
resulting with wells bearing Akwa Ibom native names to Rivers State. This is the
origin of the dispute and the agitations of Akwa Ibom State for justice,
fairness and equity.
Since 2004 Akwa Ibom State became unjustly deprived of 332 oil wells in favour
of Rivers and Cross River States, 76 of these to Cross River and
256 to Rivers State. This transfer helped to boost Cross River derivation
revenue in October 2000 of 193,572.93 in relation to that of Akwa Ibom of
1,855,346,047.46, a ratio of 1:10,000 and helped Rivers State derivation revenue
of 1,531,304,960.77 surpass that of Akwa Ibom State.
The selective application of the equidistant principle to a localized
indentation of the coast line at the mouth of Imo River gave rise to the skewed
line that transferred historical oil wells that had always belonged to Akwa Ibom
State to Rivers State.
This is a raw denial of Akwa Ibom State's legitimate derivation due to economic
activities of federal maritime properties on Akwa Ibom State maritime resources
of only up to 200 meter isobath.
|
Explored Options at Recovery of our Oil Wells
Political Solution: This was canvassed by Akwa Ibom State but was rejected by the Cross River State Executive Council. The rejection was
conveyed by His Excellency, The Governor of Cross River State to the President
of the Federal Republic vide letter dated 27th March 2006 and copy forwarded to
The Governor of Akwa Ibom State from State House Abuja on April 28th 2006 vide
letter Ref PRESS/44.
It should be emphasized that if a political solution is again to be contemplated, it needs to address the Supreme Court pronouncement holistically.
Technical Solution: This involves the firm and final exclusion of Cross
River State from the list of littoral states. Not having any access to the sea
by Cross River State stems from two geometric reasons:
- That the riparian territory of Cross River State is truncated at the
intersection of the “Maroua line” with the median of the cross river. This is
several nautical miles from the sea.
- That the western part of the Bakassi Peninsula which Cross River State
would have claimed as its corridor to the sea, and which assumption the NBC
relied upon is today totally a Cameroonian territory.
Historical Title: This has often been misread or misunderstood. The Law
of the Sea in Article 15 provides for this option as a complement to the
technical solution, where the states have adjacent or opposite coasts to each
other in the territorial sea/area subject of delineation.
Cross River State has sometimes made claims to the 76 oil wells using this
principle by making reference to a letter written by the former Governor of
Akwa Ibom State.
This position is not tenable because the letter was written in error as the
matter had been settled by the Supreme Court.
|
Impact of the ICJ Ruling
From the further affidavits of the plaintiffs it is clear that there was a
dispute over the boundaries between Nigeria and Cameroon and the ICJ delivered
the judgment on October 10, 2002. The part of the territory the plaintiffs
brought before the court was involved in the area litigated upon at the ICJ.
In its judgment, the International Court directed the Secretary- General of the
United Nations to set up machinery that will supervise the peaceful
implementation of the court's judgment and that gave rise to the Greentree
Agreement. So it can validly be said that the Greentree Agreement that was drawn
up under the auspices of the United Nations and witnessed by some Member-States
in the Security Council was done in compliance or enforcement of the judgment of
the International Court.
Since the issue had been determined at that level, the decision binds all
sovereign states that are members of the United Nations and no member-state can
assume jurisdiction to review again what has been decided by the ICJ. It is also
noteworthy that a treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be
performed by them in good faith in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties, 1969.
Akwa Ibom State is where the pain of the entire situation is felt. There were about 100,000 returnees of Akwa Ibom origin from Bakassi hailing from
Mbo, Oron, Okobo, Uruan, Udung Uko, Nsit Eket, Eket and Ibiono Ibom Local
Government Areas; this is not consistent with the claim by the Cross River State
Government in the past that Bakassi was part of their state.
The Nigerian Judiciary is part and parcel of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
and, therefore, could not review the judgment, pronouncement or decision of the
ICJ, just as the Cameroonian Judiciary cannot do so. After all, the delineation
of international boundaries is a matter beyond the jurisdiction of domestic
courts.
The hand-over was to take place in view of Nigeria's desire for mutual respect
among the comity of nations, particularly bearing in mind her rightful and
genuine desire to be a member of the Security Council of the United Nations.
|
 |
The agregation of current Akwa Ibom oil wells in relation to previously denied oil
wells (bound by dotted lines)
|
Ceding of Bakassi Peninsula To Cameroon
|
Return of Oil Wells to Akwa Ibom State
|
Implications of the Return of Oil Wells
|
|
It was impossible for Nigeria to breach its obligations under international law.
In October 2008, when Bakassi was fully handed over, Cameroon and the international
community refused, and so we lost the entire Bakassi to Cameroon, and by
implication, the western part of Bakassi that would have given Cross River State
an outlet to the sea, and perhaps management rights over the 76 oil wells in question.
Once Bakassi was ceded to Cameroon, Cross River became land locked, hemmed in
and bounded only by inland waterways. The seaward boundary of Nigeria became the
boundary between Akwa Ibom and Cameroon and the moment that happened, Cross
River ceased to fancy the prospects of benefiting from any oil well in the sea,
since it lacks an opening to the sea.
Handing over Bakassi to Cameroon did not affect Nigeria’s map since Bakassi had
never been on Nigeria's map. There was no direct breach of the Nigerian
constitution and the handover was peaceful and to the satisfaction of the ICJ,
the international community, Cameroon, and the Federal Government as a novel
direction in our foreign policy.
|
By letter SH/VP/32 of 20th May, 2009, an invitation was extended from the Office
of the Vice President of the Federal Republic to the Governors of Akwa Ibom,
Cross River, Rivers, and Abia States (not littoral) to discuss further
complaints arising from the recent application by the Revenue Mobilization
Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) of the Presidential intervention on
earlier complaints.
Discussions were very exhaustive as several truths were brought to bear and
several maps were displayed by the NBC for better understanding of the issue at stake.
The return of oil wells from Cross River State is hinged on the fact that prior
to the supreme court's ruling, Cross River State did not have the 76 oil wells
attributed to it on account of the non-contiguity of its landmass to the oil
wells which were at sea but adjacent to Akwa Ibom coastline.
President Yar’Adua intervened with equity and fairness as indices for
resolution. 172 oil wells from Rivers State have been returned, though not all,
as the perpendicular to the normal baseline or the bisector principle did not
capture all the historic wells adjacent to it. The basis for political solution
does not therefore lend itself at this point.
|
The concept of historical title as in Article 15 of UNCLOS 82, to which Nigeria
is signatory and in order to ensure that Akwa Ibom State no longer suffers from
any arbitrariness in maritime delineation, is very apt in this case as adjacency
exists between Akwa Ibom and Rivers States, whereby the concept can be applied
to supplement any problematic technical approach to the delineation.
Based on the principle of equity, fairness, and adherence to the tenets and
articles of international conventions (like UNCLOS 82), the remaining 84 oil
wells of Akwa Ibom State still straddled in Rivers State should be returned to
Akwa Ibom State making up the complete 256 oil wells relocated to Rivers State
in 2005.
Despite the Supreme Court’s pronouncement declaring Cross River State a non-
littoral state, from November 2004 to April 2009, Cross River had illegally
received monthly derivation revenue in the total sum of N31,366,848,814.67 based
on the 76 oil wells arbitrarily and illegally transferred from Akwa Ibom State.
Besides, Cross River State has also illegally received derivation revenue in the
sharing of excess crude funds from the period November 2004 to April 2009.
A total refund in the sum of N170,585,734,430.20 should be made by Rivers State
to Akwa Ibom State. This represents payment of derivation revenues arbitrarily
and wrongly paid to Rivers State from November 2004 to April 2009 on account of
those oil wells.
|
 |
|
The new international boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon Republic as well as
between Akwa Ibom and Cross River States showing that the boundary between Akwa Ibom
and Cross River intersects the international boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon
in the estuary and how Cross River is bound by inland waters, helmed in and land
locked with no access to the sea |
28th July, 2009 |