The Nation Newspaper ‏@TheNationNews
Supreme Court in an unanimous decision on Tuesday says 76 offshore oil wells belong to Akwa Ibom, dismisses suit by Cross River. (NAN)

crusifis: CROSS RIVER SHOULD DECLARE A FULL BLOWN WAR AGAINST AKWAIBOM, NOW OR NEVER

afam4eva: Akwa-Ibom as a state has more political muscle than Cross-river state because i don't understand the logic behind the ceding of CR oil wells to Akwa-Ibom.

bennyraz: Boring news! D oil wells still belong to Nigeria

solomon111: OLE THIEF BARAWO!

Billyonaire: The apex court dashes the hope of the Cross River State government which had hoped to shore its revenue profile with the oil assets

The Supreme Court has just ruled, awarding the contentious 76 oil wells to Akwa Ibom State.

The wells were awarded to Akwa Ibom after the ceding of Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon.

In a unanimous verdict, the court dismissed the suit by the Cross River State government, saying Akwa Ibom is the rightful owner of the asset and that the Cross River State argument lacked substance and merit.

Cross River had urged the apex court to hault judgement on the matter, saying the map presented to the court by Akwa Ibom was fraudulent and could not be relied upon.

odumchi: I think Akwa Ibom and Cross River could've worked out an amicable solution to their problem. Maybe the oil wells could've been shared?

Cross River (a state with a strong dependence on toursim and limited infrastructural development) could've really benefited from the wealth generated by those oil wells.

executinal: But are they not same people

Okija_juju:


I support...

Cross-Rivers is now so useless without their oil..

I suggest they finance some cross-riverians to Yemen and Libya to learn how to fight.. This means war....

afam4eva: Akwa-Ibom as a state has more political muscle than Cross-river state because i don't understand the logic behind the ceding of CR oil wells to Akwa-Ibom.

jaybee:

this is a court judgement, not politics, culture or economics.

i can remember a political solution was arranged sometimes back, in which in the spirit of brotherliness, Akwa-Ibom State agreed to share the proceeds of oil, from the oil wells in question, with Cross Rivers State. but Cross Rivers State was not satisfied with the arrangement and so went back to court in attempt to claim all. recall that both states were once in the old cross rivers state, before the split in 1987, and it appears the present day cross rivers state government do not appear to have a good grasp of the coordinates their common boundary, vis-a-vis the loss of bakkasi peninsula. once bakassi was ceded to cameroun, cross rivers ceased to be a littoral state, and has zero oil production onshore; it is now land-locked just like kogi, benue, katsina. this is a political, economic, cultural and judicial matter, but the court judgement was more of administrative.

afam4eva:
I'm referring to the reasons why 76 oil wells were ceded to Akwa-Ibom in the first place and not the court judgement.

jaybee:

this is a court judgement, not politics, culture or economics.

i can remember a political solution was arranged sometimes back, in which in the spirit of brotherliness, Akwa-Ibom State agreed to share the proceeds of oil, from the oil wells in question, with Cross Rivers State. but Cross Rivers State was not satisfied with the arrangement and so went back to court in attempt to claim all. recall that both states were once in the old cross rivers state, before the split in 1987, and the present day cross rivers state government do not appear to have a good grasp of the coordinates their common boundary, and the implication of the loss of bakkasi peninsula. once bakassi was ceded to cameroun, cross rivers ceased to be a littoral state, and has zero oil production onshore; it is now land-locked just like kogi, benue, katsina. it has zero derivation from the offshore production, where the oil wells in question are located. this is a political, economic, cultural and judicial matter, but the court judgement in question was more of administrative.