By Eteteonline
Following Nigeria’s 2012 handover of the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon, the Supreme Court of Nigeria declared that Cross River is not a littoral state. Cross River lost access to offshore oil wells as a result of that decision. Akwa Ibom State was granted the 76 oil wells that had previously belonged to Cross River. As a result, Cross River lost the money that oil-producing states receive and ceased to be an oil-producing state.
As of right present, the federal government is examining the oil well controversy without restoring status. Plans to restore oil-producing status have been previously stated by Governor Bassey Otu.
Prince Bassey Edet Otu, who became governor of Cross River State in 2023, has worked to reclaim 76 oil wells that were given to Akwa Ibom after a 2012 Supreme Court ruling, claiming that 67 of them are located inside its maritime borders.
In order to recover the 76 oil wells, restore oil production, and reclaim its maritime claims, the Cross River State government is vigorously lobbying for restoration.
Cross River State nevertheless maintains that the issue was not entirely settled, pointing to the absence of a suitable, contemporary, and tangible boundary definition.
In order to overturn the earlier decision, Governor Otu claims the wells belong to Cross River and is relying on fresh geographic and mapping information.
State and federal officials have urged that the matter should be reexamined and that Cross River should remain littoral. In order to bolster its coastal rights, the state is also creating navigation data and maritime projects.
Cross River is still formally non-littoral as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision. No federal decision to reinstate the status has been confirmed. Technical verification exercises and dispute reviews are now underway.
The Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission, a federal agency, is confirming and charting the locations of contested oil wells. This is a component of the ongoing examination of the Akwa Ibom–Cross River dispute.
However, because it believes that the Supreme Court and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have legally resolved the issue and determined that the contested offshore wells are located within Akwa Ibom’s territory, Akwa Ibom State opposes the return of oil wells to Cross River.
The 2012 Supreme Court decision and the ICJ ruling established a definitive boundary, nullifying Cross River’s claims, according to a July 2025 statement released by the Akwa Ibom State Government through its Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice in response to public comments and petitions from Cross River State officials contesting the status of the oil-rich territory. The statement claims that the oil wells in question are situated within the 200-meter isobath, offshore, and geographically adjacent to Akwa Ibom.
“Under Section 235 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the decisions of the Supreme Court are final and binding on all authorities and persons throughout the federation,” the state attorney general and commissioner for justice told reporters in Uyo.
Through its agencies, the Federal Government of Nigeria could confirm the coordinates of oil wells and identify which ones are located within the Cross River. Oil production could be restored as a result. However, any contested allocation would probably end up back in court. Without judicial support, the Federal Government or a federal agency cannot overrule the Supreme Court’s decision.
Since the Supreme Court’s ruling is final, federal agencies cannot overrule court rulings, any changes impact state revenue sharing, and Akwa Ibom State would probably contest restoration, return of the oil wells would be legally challenging.
It will take more than just political promises for Cross River State to regain the 76 oil wells. Since the matter is linked to a legally binding Supreme Court ruling, it must adhere to stringent legal and constitutional procedures.
Since the 2012 decision that eliminated Cross River’s littoral status is final and enforceable, a new decision by the Nigerian Supreme Court is the most likely course of action. Cross River must bring a new lawsuit with fresh legal arguments or supporting documentation, such as claims to the coastline and maritime boundaries, in order to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The court must come up with a legitimate reason to change its previous decision. This is so because only the Supreme Court can effectively overrule or alter its ruling.
The question, therefore, is can the Supreme Court reverse itself? The answer is yes. The Supreme Court has the right to diverge from or reverse its earlier ruling, albeit it would do so with the greatest trepidation.
It rarely reverses itself unless there is a compelling new legal basis. The Supreme Court can overrule itself when it emerges that any of its rulings was given in error. In GTBank versus Innoson Motors (2022), the Supreme Court overruled its own earlier dismissal of an appeal by the bank after admitting it was misled by a registry error.
The 2012 Supreme Court verdict was given in error, based on the distortion of facts. Otherwise, how can Cross River, considered to be non-littoral, be establishing a deep-sea port or be hosting the Nigerian Headquarters of the Eastern Naval Command?
For Cross River to recover the 76 oil wells legally, the state government would require a fresh Supreme Court judgment reversing or altering the 2012 ruling. It has to construct a formidable legal team to approach the Supreme Court with the fresh facts and evidence.
Add comment