Former Speaker of the Cross River State House of Assembly, John Lebo, has insisted that the long-running dispute between Cross River and Akwa Ibom states over offshore oil wells remains unresolved, arguing that internal maritime boundaries have never been conclusively demarcated despite past court judgments.
Lebo made the assertion in an interview with ARISE News on Thursday, countering claims that the matter had been fully settled by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2002 and the Supreme Court in 2012.
According to him, confusion surrounding the dispute stems from a failure to clearly distinguish between international judgments, domestic court rulings and technical boundary delineation exercises.
“We must distinguish between the judgment of the International Court of Justice in 2002, the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2012, and the activities of the National Boundary Commission,” Lebo said.
He explained that the ICJ ruling primarily addressed Nigeria’s international boundary with Cameroon, not the internal maritime boundary between Cross River and Akwa Ibom states.
“The 2002 ICJ judgment dealt with three estuaries — the Cross River Estuary, the Akwa Akpa Estuary and Rio del Rey. The court placed the international boundary at the mouth of the Akwa Akpa Estuary and drew a median line into the Gulf of Guinea,” he said.
Lebo noted that the court also established a second median line to preserve Nigeria’s maritime access, which he said remains critical to Cross River State’s claim.
“The court drew a second median line to provide maritime access. That is why, even from Akwa Ibom, you cannot go to Cameroon without passing through Cross River. That access lies with Cross River,” he said.
Rejecting references to the so-called “Marwa Line,” Lebo said the ICJ judgment was based on colonial-era treaties, not post-independence political agreements.
“There is nothing like a Marwa Line. What people refer to as Marwa Line was an agreement between General Yakubu Gowon and President Ahmadou Ahidjo. Cameroon went to court under Article 38 to seek interpretation of colonial treaties, not political agreements,” he said.
He stressed that international law does not permit the creation of a landlocked coastline.
“The law of the sea does not allow you to render a coastline landlocked. The purpose of international conventions is to protect maritime access,” Lebo said.
Turning to Nigeria’s internal boundary issues, the former speaker said Cross River State formally sought clarification from the National Boundary Commission (NBC) as far back as 2004, after identifying gaps in the ICJ maps.
“We wrote to the National Boundary Commission asking them to show us the boundary between Cameroon, Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea, and also the internal boundary between Akwa Ibom and Cross River State,” he said.
According to Lebo, the response from the NBC confirmed that those boundaries had not been visibly demarcated on the ground.
“We received a reply, signed by the Director-General of the National Boundary Commission, clearly stating that the boundary between Akwa Ibom and Cross River State had not been delineated on the ground,” he said.
He dismissed claims that existing maps used in revenue allocation were definitive boundary maps.
“What exists is not a boundary map but an oil dichotomy study model. A study model is not the same thing as a legally recognised map,” Lebo said.
On the Supreme Court ruling of 2012, Lebo argued that the judgment did not foreclose Cross River State’s right to be recognised as an oil-producing state.
“The Supreme Court never said Cross River State cannot have oil wells,” he said.
He explained that Cross River subsequently presented fresh technical evidence to the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC).
“We submitted over 600 pages of evidence, including surface coordinates of 245 oil wells, reservoir coordinates of 188 wells, and 41 reservoir wells straddling Nigeria and Cameroon,” Lebo said.
He disclosed that following the submission, RMAFC and other relevant agencies conducted on-site verification involving officials from both states.
“Revenue Mobilisation came to Cross River State with the Surveyor-General of Akwa Ibom and other officials. They went on the ground and confirmed over 230 oil wells,” he said.
Lebo said the current dispute centres on plotting verified coordinates onto Nigeria’s administrative map.
“This is a scientific process. It is about placing coordinates on the map to show what belongs to Akwa Ibom and what belongs to Cross River,” he said.
While acknowledging that some wells may fall within Akwa Ibom territory, Lebo said Cross River is prepared to accept verified outcomes.
“We will accept the wells that went into Akwa Ibom. But Akwa Ibom should also place their coordinates. It is a reconciliation process,” he said.
He maintained that Cross River’s demand is straightforward and evidence-based.
“If Akwa Ibom has the coordinates of the 76 oil wells referred to by the Supreme Court, they should bring them and remove them from the list of 246. That is our argument,” Lebo said.
Calling for a final resolution, he said the issue can no longer be ignored.
“At this point, we cannot run away from this matter. We need to see the coordinates and resolve it transparently,” he added.
Boluwatife Enome
Follow us on:
