Never Say Never: Stolen or Ceded?

Some stories refuse to die not because of sentiment but because justice has not been served. The controversy and revelation surrounding the 76 oil wells is one such story. Despite repeated attempts to label the matter as “settled,” evolving facts, emerging technical data, and unresolved historical questions continue to breathe life into it.

This is not a mere quarrel between two sister states – Akwa Ibom and Cross River States. It is a test of Nigeria’s commitment to fairness, technical accuracy and justice in a federal system still grappling with the consequences of colonial borders and post-colonial compromise. Without playing the ostrich, the one who paid handsomely gets favoured – corruption hawked on the streets between parties, (NBC and AkSG), questioning the professionalism and neutrality of the National Boundary Commission. The officials who did the mess should be retired now or some are still in service. Are they above the law?The real question is no longer whether the oil wells were ceded or stolen but whether the truth; complete, technical and just has ever been told.

To understand the 76 oil wells narrative, one must return to the Bakassi Peninsula, a territory historically administered by Cross River State until the 2002 International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling transferred sovereignty to Cameroon. That judgment, followed by the Green Tree Agreement of 2008, was a painful but accepted sacrifice by Nigeria in the interest of international peace. For Cross River State, however, it came at a devastating cost: the loss of territory, communities, livelihoods, and crucially, uninterrupted access to the Atlantic Ocean. This single development altered Cross River State’s geopolitical and maritime profile, setting the stage for subsequent administrative and legal interpretations that would later affect oil well attribution as is the case now.

The Supreme Court Judgment; What It Said and What It Did Not Say. In 2012, the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered its judgment in the dispute between Cross River and Akwa Ibom States. Public discourse simplified the outcome to a convenient headline: “Supreme Court cedes 76 oil wells to Akwa Ibom” That headline, while popular, was legally misleading. A careful reading of the judgment reveals that the Supreme Court did not explicitly allocate or transfer ownership of the oil wells to Akwa Ibom State. Rather, it held that Cross River State, having lost its littoral status following the Bakassi cession, could no longer sustain certain claims premised on maritime boundaries. The Court struck out Cross River State’s reliefs but left the technical determination of offshore boundaries and resource attribution to relevant federal agencies. This distinction is critical. The judiciary did not conduct a hydrographic survey, draw new maritime lines, or determine precise coordinates of oil wells.

The Supreme Court ruled on jurisdiction and standing, not on geodetic ownership of oil wells. Following the judgment, federal agencies including the National Boundary Commission (NBC), Office of the Surveyor-General of the Federation and the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission, proceeded to administratively assign the oil wells to Akwa Ibom State. Cross River State’s contention is not that federal institutions acted unlawfully, but that they acted prematurely and incompletely, relying on assumptions rather than exhaustive scientific demarcation. The Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed Commission had not concluded comprehensive maritime boundary work, yet decisions with multi-billion naira implications were taken. What followed was what Cross River State describes as a technical convenience, not a technical certainty.

Recent inter-agency technical reviews and updated well dichotomy data have reportedly revealed that a significant number of the oil wells up to 67, fall within areas historically and geographically traceable to Cross River State. Since these findings hold, they have raised an uncomfortable but unavoidable question, can a matter truly be considered closed when the facts underpinning it have evolved?

Justice, especially in resource governance, cannot be frozen in time. When new evidence emerges, responsible governance demands reconsideration,not denial. Finality without factual accuracy is administrative closure, not justice. The emotionally charged language of “stolen” versus “ceded” often obscures the deeper issue. Cross River State’s position is more precise: the oil wells were misassigned, not lawfully ceded.

• The ICJ ruling ceded Bakassi not offshore oil wells.
• The Supreme Court did not redraw maritime boundaries.
• Administrative bodies acted without final scientific demarcation.

Seen through this lens, Cross River State’s agitation is not rebellious, it is procedural and principled. You cannot cede what was never expressly defined or technically measured.

For Cross River State, this concern goes far beyond barrels of crude. It is about economic survival after cumulative losses, fairness in a federation built on shared resources and the dignity of a people who feel repeatedly asked to sacrifice without compensation.

The 76 oil wells symbolizes; lost development opportunities, deferred infrastructure, a lingering sense of federal neglect.
“Never Say Never” is therefore not a threat, it is a declaration of hope grounded in constitutional rights and evolving evidence. Federalism must balance sacrifice with equity, not silence. This matter does not require hostility or inter-state antagonism. It requires;

1. Comprehensive Scientific Demarcation.Using modern hydrographic, geodetic and satellite data to conclusively establish boundaries.

2. Federal Mediation with Moral Authority, which is already at work. The Federal Government must rise above administrative defensiveness and pursue equitable resolution.

3. Economic Mitigation Measures; Pending final outcomes, compensatory frameworks should address Cross River State’s economic disadvantage.Dialogue guided by data is stronger than litigation driven by politics.

The story of the 76 oil wells is not over because the truth surrounding them is not fully told. In law, in science and in conscience, the door remains open for a fair, factual, and forward-looking resolution. Nigeria’s strength lies not in pretending disputes do not exist but in confronting them with courage, clarity and compassion. For Cross River State, “Never Say Never” is not defiance, it is faith in a federation capable of correcting itself. And for Nigeria, that will be the most valuable resource of all.

Omini Oden
ominioden@gmail.com