Brothers in war on oil wells …

Something deep continues to tell me that Nigeria would have been much better without crude oil. And I believe it! Nigeria was relatively better before independence. It was still, before crude oil became the main economic supporter, before the 70s. Nigeria’s economy was stronger in the global commercial index. The currency was competitive.

The discovery of crude oil in commercial quantities introduced the raw in our psyche and has attracted unnecessary attention to the local and global level. Things began to fall into pieces. The foresight has disappeared. Ingenuity decreased. The innovation has been abandoned, the Shunned integrity, the fled to the fugitives, the lost love, the contempt fairness, the challenged justice, the embraced lust, the pampered avarice, the celebrated corruption and the raped society. The nation went to the drift. And, it is still abroad, drifting!

Almost all the afflictions suffered today by the country have a shade of crude oil. Directly or as an accessory. Nigeria had problems before independence, but these were located. The crude oil came and globalized them. The brothers lived together, but crude oil came like a hot knife in butter and divided them. The Nigerians entrusted hard work for existence, raw oil arrived and lubricated the gears of adherence while the wetlands pompreded in enormous oil at the strike of a well.

The country has become Berserk. We had so much that we didn’t know what strategic thing to do with it. We made a prodigal madness, spending freely and stealing a little. The work of the government that was an agricultural land of integrity became the jungle of graft without brain. The forests, the prairies and the rivers, which were the sources of wealth, saw the back of the company; And jobs, contracts and advice of white collars have become the new brides because of their oil attractions.

Flooding political, it was based more on the acquisition than on the service to the community, filed with the anatomy of the country and the result of the surgical interference saw the disappearance of the peanut pyramids, the cocoa warehouses, the palm oil mills, the rubber factories, the piles of the timber, the hiding places and the tonines of the skin. The skies, dressed in white smoke from the factories, began to drop the dark soot prohibited by rockets by crude oil wells. The brilliant future of the country has been blurred by dark smoking by oil prospecting activities. The militants have increased from the infection. The kidnappers found excuses. The changing rooms took the inlets. The non -dizzying became jealous. The antagonism found a little rhythm. The communities have become more renowned for the slope of productivity. And the show is today’s theater, our inheritance.

The struggle for the advantages and the privileges and the mentality of law that swells from the regions infested with crude oil has seen the destroyed communities, the lost lives and the long -shed relationships. The brothers are in arms against each other. This is the current situation with Cross River and Akwa Ibom States, which have for centuries have shared the common affinity: ancestral, historical, political, economic and social relationships. Akwa Ibom had a comparison with spars on a similar score, but in the end he gave peace.

Both Cross River and Akwa Ibom states were a people until 1987 when they were politically separated. This did not affect other relationships until Bakassi’s arrival, and then followed the oil wells. So it was that the two brothers basically began drift with flaming swords in hand. But for now it must be clarified that for now it is a government deal to government. People still love their marital happiness. But crude oil is threatening their indulgence.

The question that surrounds the 76 oil wells between the two neighboring states is rooted in historical territorial changes and in the complex legal considerations relating to the maritime boundaries and the rights of ownership of oil. This situation was born from the 2002 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), who assigned the Bakassi peninsula to Cameroon, thus affecting the coastal status of Cross River. This change has made Cross River not admissible to claim offshore oil wells pursuant to the Nigerian law due to the absence of a maritime border.

To calm the nerves and face the emerging challenges, the Obasanjo Obasgun government has assigned 76 oil wells to Akwa Ibom and 14 to cross River as a political resolution. Despite this, Cross River has raised concerns about his equity and started a legal challenge.

He affirmed the requests on the 76 offshore oil wells located inside the 200 -meter isobath, adjacent to the state of Akwa Ibom and supported property rights and revenue on well. So far he has launched two legal proceedings to contest the property and the boundaries relating to these oil wells, claiming that he has legitimate rights for them.

The Supreme Court twice rejected the requests on the basis of the fact that Cross River is no longer a coastal state and lacks maritime boundaries to claim offshore oil activities. The Court’s decision also took into account the reallocation from the mobilization of the revenue, the allocation and the tax commission (RMAFC) and clarified that the 2006 political agreement had been influenced by the changing geopolitical landscape following the Bakassi transfer.

Despite the clarity provided by the Court’s sentence, political discussions have continued, with the current Cross River government that expresses the desire to revisit the matter. Akwa Ibom, on the other hand, insisted on the purpose of the court’s decision, stressing that it is binding and not open to further negotiations.

The resolution of property in favor of Akwa Ibom involves significant implications for the distribution of revenue and resource management. Currently, the revenues of these wells are kept under warranty, highlighting the importance of finding a construction path that respects the legal determinations by addressing any persistent concerns of both states.

In recent times, there have been the claims of the two state governments about who is the antagonist on the subject, in particular as regards the dispute. Akwa Ibom’s prosecutor General, Uko Udom, Senior supporter of Nigeria, says that the government of the cross river state is guilty of incitement through renewed petitions and disinformation. He acquitted his state government for any form of antagonism. Cross River, he said, was the contender who suffered two seed losses on the matter.

Uomo cited the case in question n. 124/1999, that the government of the State of the Cross river sued the state of Akwa Ibom on the northern non -estuary border (involving 24 villages of Oku/Itu/Ayadehe in the local government of Akwa Ibom State), as well as the south of the Boundary Southern Whow the 76 oil oil. The Supreme Court of June 24, 2005 pronounced in favor of the state of cross River only in the field of 24 villages in the North, but rejected the request on the southern territory of Estuartine, where the 76 contested oil wells are located. The reason for the dismissal was that the dispute no longer had a border towards the sea and was not entitled to benefits that accumulated to the coastal entities.

The Court explained that the ICJ sentence of 10 October 2002 on the border case of the Earth and Maritime between Nigeria and Cameroon had swept away what was the Estuardine sector of Cross River State. So Cross River no longer has a border towards the sea.

Uod explained that after the judgment of the court, the government of the state of Akwa Ibom made lively attempts to resolve oil revenues with its twin state. The efforts included the offer of Cross River ₦ 250 million a month from its derivation revenues, which crosses presumably misunderstood and rejected in March 2006 and consultations with the statians and elderly parties to avoid disputes, due to the relative links and the risks of damage to interstatic relationships. These peace efforts have failed. Cross River has launched a new judicial action (Cause n. Sc. 27/2010), for property rights and revenue on the 76 offshore oil wells.

The Supreme Court, on July 10, 2012, again stated that on the issue of the 76 oil wells, Cross River was not standing to claim offshore oil wells as it was no longer a coastal state (coastal). The meaning is simply that since Cross River no longer had a maritime border, it does not have the right to claim offshore oil activities. Despite the second sentence, the annoyance continued.

The presidency recently intervened and recommended to both sides to find a peaceful way around it. Last week, Akwa Ibom warned that Cross River seems not to feel comfortable with the advice and resorted to blackmail. He has chosen to advance his statements through media campaigns and public statements and, in the trial, making misleading statements that are generating a useless tension between people, said Akwa Ibom’s prosecutor general.

He indicated that Akwa Ibom was open to a political solution, provided that he does not minute his rights established legally. Any resolution must also face another controversial question: the communities added to cross River, not just the 76 oil wells. He suggested that the Federal Government could help Cross River through ecological funds and development programs without removing the rights of Akwa Ibom. He indicated a similar experience with Rivers State. After losing the oil wells in the state of sparrows in a sentence of the Supreme Court, Akwa Ibom accepted the verdict and went on. Cross River should do the same, recommended.

■ James, a member of the Nigerian guild of the publishers, lives in Abuja.

Related