The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Nigeria

  • Whether a state is littoral or not within Nigeria is a question of fact

    The plaintiff does not presently have a land/shore/baseline abutting the sea.

    The 76 oil wells, subject matter of dispute, lie off shore and in a maritime territory within 200 meters isobaths from Akwa Ibom State shore/base line into the sea. The 2nd defendant concluded that the RMAFC Inter-Agency meeting report was therefore factually correct in attributing the 76 oil wells to Akwa Ibom while the Federal Government has been acting legally and correctly in paying to Akwa Ibom State the derivation funds from the said 76 oil wells. The 2nd defendant agrees that there was no boundary dispute between Cross River State and Akwa Ibom State.

    The 2nd defendant however formulated two issues for the determination of this court in this suit as follows –

    1. At all times material to this suit, was and is Cross River State a Nigerian Littoral State and entitled thereby to attribution and derivation revenues in respect of the 76 oil wells pursuant to the provisions of Section 162 (2) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 1 of the Allocation of Revenue (Abolition of Dichotomy in the application of the Principle of Derivation) Act Cap A 27 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004?

    2. Does the judgment of this honourable court in Attorney-General, Rivers State v. Attorney-General, Akwa Ibom State & 1 Or (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1248) pg. 31 apply to this case and can that judgment be relied upon to entitle Cross River State howsoever to attribution and derivation of revenues in respect of the 76 oil wells?

    The foregoing is the resume of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff in the statement of claim, the case of the parties respectively and the issues formulated by the parties.

    A cursory examination of all these issues reveals the crucial issues raised for determination in this suit. They can easily be identified as follows:

    1. Whether there is in existence any issue of boundary adjustment between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant in view of the binding agreement and resolution between the parties under the supervision of the 1st defendant since 2006 through its agencies.

    2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the derivation revenue from the seventy-six oil wells which were previously located within the 200 meter water depth isobaths contiguous to its territory as stipulated in Sections 1 & 2 of the Allocation of Revenue (Abolition of Dichotomy) with the principle of Derivation Act 2004.

    3. Whether the order of mandatory and perpetual injunctions restraining the 1st defendant by himself or through any of its agents from excluding the plaintiff from its entitlement to 13% derivation in relation to the sharing of revenue from the Federation Accounts as a littoral state are enforceable.

    I intend to be guided by these three issues in the determination of this case.

    Yusuf Ali learned senior advocate for the plaintiff predicated the case of the plaintiff on the processes filed and particularly the written statement on oath of Ralph Idiku Uche. The plaintiff emphasized that by the 31st of January 2005, the issue of boundary was mutually settled by the parties. The 2nd defendant, Akwa Ibom State wrote to the President on the 31st of January 2005 through Exhibit A to confirm her consent to the agreement. By the letter of the National Boundary Commission dated the 4th of January 2005, the agreed maritime boundary between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are –

    a. The terminal point of the Akwa Ibom/Cross River Inter-State boundary in the Cross River Estuary has coordinates 43733 N and 82439 E.

    b. The Maritime boundary between Akwa Ibom and Cross River State should be a line drawn from the point referred in (a) above southwards until it intersects with Nigeria/Equatorial Guinea International Maritime boundary.

    c. Items (a) and (b) above have further implications as follows –

    d. Cross River State has 35904 N and 81253 E as coordinates of the terminal point on the Nigeria/Equatorial Guinea International Maritime boundary.

    Cross River will gain 75 number of oil wells and Akwa Ibom State will lose the same number of oil wells. The status of the plaintiff as an oil producing state was sequel to the amicable resolution of the boundary dispute between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant in 2005.

    The plaintiff also submitted that the 1st defendant or any of its agencies has no power to resolve the purported dispute without the contribution and the views of the plaintiff and the defendant. The statutory duty of the National Boundary Commission implies that there must be a boundary dispute before the Commission can refer the dispute to its technical committee. The plaintiff also dismissed the claim of the federal government that the decision of the International Court of Justice in the Cameroon/Nigeria Border dispute on the Bakassi Peninsula, as the basis of the review of the Derivation Fund Formula and why the plaintiff’s name was removed from the table of beneficiaries.

    The plaintiff disagreed with this reason in view of the following facts –

    a. The decision of the International Court of Justice was made in 2002.

    b. The boundary dispute between the plaintiff and 2nd defendant was amicably settled in 2005.

    c. The decision of the ICJ has implication of the retention of the Western part of Bakassi Peninsula by Nigeria which means legally and administratively Bakassi LGA of Cross River State remains integral part of Nigeria. This entails that Cross River State has an outlet to the sea.

    d. The ICJ decision can no longer be the basis for changing realities as erroneously canvassed by the RMAFC and NBC.

    The plaintiff further submitted that the 1st defendant having acted ultra vires of its powers under the law, the purported settlement of non-existence boundary dispute is null and void. The plaintiff cited cases to support the submission that the 1st defendant acted ultra vires of its powers:-

    Knight Frank & Rutley (Nig) v. A-G Kano State (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt.556) Pg. 1 at pg. 19. Ujam v. IMT (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt.1010) Pg.490 at Pgs. 498 -499.

    The 1st defendant through her counsel Mr. Mike Usman, learned senior counsel argued and submitted that the National Boundary Commission; the Revenue Mobilization Allocation of Funds Committee; the Surveyor-General of the Federation and the Department of Petroleum Resources did not determine any boundary dispute between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant at her Inter-Agency Retreat in Kano in August 2008. The Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission relied on her statutory power under Section 6(1) (a) and (b) of the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission Act Cap R7 Laws of the Federation 2004 where it is empowered to –

    “Monitor the accruals to and disbursement of Revenue from the Federation Account and review from time to time the revenue allocation formulae and principles in operation to ensure conformity with changing realities.”

    The Revenue Allocation Commission would rely on information supplied by relevant various departments in the preparation of the 13% derivation Revenue Indices pursuant to Section 162(2) of the 1999 Constitution and Section (1) of the Onshore/Offshore Dichotomy Abolition Act 2004.

    The 1st defendant specified the statutory duty of the National Boundary Commission based on Section 7(1) of the National Boundary Commission (Establishment) Act Cap N10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 which reads that the “National Boundary Commission is empowered to define and delimitate boundaries between States, Local Government Areas or Communities in the Federation and between Nigeria and her neighbours in accordance with delimitation instrument or document established for that purpose.”

    The 2nd defendant submitted through the learned senior counsel Chief Bayo Ojo about the effect of International Court of Justice’s judgment on the boundary demarcation between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. The judgment of the International court was delivered in 2002. The decision was taken into consideration in resolving the Maritime boundary dispute in 2005. The letter of 4th January 2005 specified the boundary but the letter was written under the impression that Nigeria would be allowed to retain Western Bakassi. The judgment of the International court did not give Nigeria the privilege of retaining Western Bakassi neither did the judgment at any time excise Bakassi nor award it to Nigeria. The entire Peninsula was handed over to Cameroon in August 2008. The letter of 4th January 2005 was written with the hope that Bakassi Peninsula would become part of Nigeria and the National Boundary Commission in 2005 transferred and attributed to Cross River State the 76 oil wells which hitherto were legally the properly of and within the Maritime boundaries of Akwa Ibom State. The National Boundary Commission’s letter dated 4th January 2005 was hinged on the prospects that Nigeria would succeed in retaining Western Bakassi Peninsula. The map Exhibit CRSG 1 was said to have been approved by the President on the 24th of January 2005. This court in the case of A-G Cross River State v. A-G Federation (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt.958) Pg.581 rejected the National Boundary Commission revised boundary map that was then approved by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in that it will be premature for the court to determine the maritime boundary of the two states. Nigeria and Cameroon has to conclude their negotiation to finality and the international boundary fixed by the International Court of Justice is codified and published in line with the agreement. In effect, this court decided in that case contrary to the facts put forward in this case in this suit, that Cross River State and Akwa Ibom State do not share maritime boundaries in which circumstances there could not possibly be a maritime boundary dispute that could possibly be settled between the two states. The National Boundary Commission 2005 delineation/map was rejected by this court in the case A-G Cross River State v. A-G Federation. Both Exhibits F and B were nullified in that case. It is a misconception to conclude that RMAFC Inter-Agency meeting went in search of a non-existent maritime boundary dispute between Cross River and Akwa Ibom States. With the decision and execution of the judgment of International Court of Justice between Nigeria and Cameroon, there can never be a maritime boundary dispute between Cross River and Akwa Ibom States. As an outcome of the judgment of that court, Cross River State is now landlocked and has no seaward boundary. It is not a littoral state and consequently shares no maritime boundary with Akwa Ibom State. The National Boundary Commission and the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission have the statutory power to react to the changes and realities the after effect of the judgment of the International Court of Justice. The plaintiff failed to tender any map to support the contention that Cross River State has access to the sea directly and not through any other State.

    The plaintiff also argued in favour of maritime boundary agreement based on the agreement of parties and supported same with two decisions of the International Court of Justice in the case concerning the Temple of Preach Vihear (Maris) Cambodia-Thailand ICJ Report (1962) and the case of Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso) v. Republic of Mali (1986) ICJ Report.

  • Swiss Embassy to lead rights day celebration in Nigeria

     

    The Embassy of Switzerland in Nigeria on Friday reiterated its commitment to promote human rights issues in the country.

    This is contained in a statement issued by the Human Security Adviser in the Swiss Embassy, Mr. Pascal Holliger.

    The theme of this year’s event is: “Inclusion and the Right to participate in Public life.”

    The embassy said it would collaborate with other Western Missions in the country to celebrate the 2012 International Human Rights Day, to be observed on December 10.

    It listed the collaborating missions as United Kingdom, United States, Canada, European Union, Finland, Germany, Italy and Sweden.

    “This year, the spotlight is on the right of all people, women, youths, minorities, persons with disabilities, indigenous people, the poor and marginalised to make their voices heard in public life and be included in political decision making,’’ the News Agency of Nigeria quoted the embassy in the statement.

    “We want to use this day as a platform for the promotion and sensitisation of this message,’’ it added.

    The embassy also listed other activities to include a press conference, human rights walk, radio jingles, including goodwill messages from Executive Secretary of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and members of the National Assembly.

     

  • Nigeria, Philippines to discuss economic ties

    TO increase the economic ties between Nigeria and Philippines, the two countries are meeting in Abuja under the second Nigeria/Philippines Joint Commission.

    While the Nigerian side was led by the Foreign Affairs Minister of State I, Prof.Viola Onwuliri, the Philippines’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Erlinda Basilio led her country’s delegation to the meeting.

    They noted that in spite of the strong political ties between the two countries, which started in the 1960s, the economic trade volumes between them have remained low.

    According to them, the first Nigeria, Philippines Joint Commission was held 27 years ago and decisions from the meeting were not fully implemented.

    Mrs Onwuliri said: “In spite of the long standing relations between Nigeria and the Philippines, economic and trade relations between both countries have been quite low.”

    “While it is heartening to note that there have been an increasing number of Filipino companies conducting business in Nigeria which signifies a push in this direction, there is yet much to be done to improve our economic and trade relations.”

  • Minister scores Nigeria, Philippines trade relations low

    Minister scores Nigeria, Philippines trade relations low

    The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Prof. Viola Onwuliri, on Thursday scored the trade relations between Nigeria and Philippines as “quite low.”

    The minister made the remark at the 2nd Nigeria-Philippines Joint Commission in Abuja.

    “In spite of the long standing relations between the two countries, the economic and trade relations have been quite low..

    “Whilst it is heartening to note that there have been an increasing number of Filipino companies conducting business in Nigeria, there is yet much to be done to improve our economic and trade relations,” the News Agency of Nigeria quoted the minister as saying at the forum.

    Onwuliri, however, noted that the two countries had achieved “a desirable” record on their bilateral relations.

    She said that numerous Filipinos had been engaged as expatriate workers thereby contributing positively to the development of Nigeria.

    The minister also noted that some Nigerians were currently in the process of taking up jobs in the Philippines.

    Onwuliri described the Commission, which was being kick- started 27 years after its establishment, as significant adding that a new impetus will be introduced to broaden existing bilateral relations.

    “Nigeria and Philippines have several areas for mutually beneficial cooperation which will enhance the growth and development of our two countries,’’ she said.

    The minister listed the areas to include education, health, agriculture, water resources, immigration, culture and tourism, trade and commerce and Justice.

    She suggested that the collective desire and focus of the two countries should be to institute fruitful deliberations.

     

  • Nigeria must build its foundation on ethics – Uduaghan

    Nigeria must build its foundation on ethics – Uduaghan

    Delta State Governor, Emmanuel Uduaghan, has stressed the need for the nation to build its foundation on ethics and values to succeed.

    The governor said this when the Special Adviser to President Goodluck Jonathan on Ethics and Values, Mrs. Sarah Jubril, visited the Government House in Asaba.

    He said the state would work with the stakeholders and support the programme to translate these ethics and values into the lives of the people.

    He charged the Commissioner for Information, Mr. Chike Ogeah to liaise with Jubril and other state coordinators of the programme to workout modalities on how the state could key into the programme.

    “The issue you are taking on is quite a tough one. I believe that the issues of ethics and values are the foundation of our nation. If our nation wants to succeed it should look at issues of ethics and values critically,’’ the News Agency of Nigeria quoted the governor as saying during the meeting.

    Uduaghan assured that the state would give all necessary assistance required for the programme to succeed in the State.

    Earlier, Jubril explained the activities of her office to the governor, saying that the programme would be developed in various indigenous languages to disseminate the message and build the necessary virtue in the people.

    She said that ethics and values were vital tools when combined with infrastructural development for building of a strong and united nation.

    She noted that ethics would not work with empty stomach, adding that messages would be translated into local languages to builds integrity and goodwill among the people.

     

  • Nigeria lost 1,166 people in 131 air accidents, says AON

    The Airline Operators of Nigeria (AON) yesterday said Nigeria lost 1,166 lives in 131 aircraft accidents between 1967 and 2012.

    Officials of the group spoke at a news conference in Lagos..

    AON’s Secretary-General Alhaji Mohammed Joji, who read the group’s address, said the accidents involved fixed wings aircraft and helicopters.

    “None of these accidents is attributed to any mechanical failure of the aircraft except the last DANA crash which lost its two engines,” Joji said.

    He hailed the Federal Government and the Minister of Aviation, Princess Stella Oduah, for lifting the suspension placed on Dana Airline following the June 3 crash in Lagos.

    Joji recalled that the mistakes of the past, which resulted in the grounding of aircraft, had negative impact on the aviation industry.

    He said: “As a result of this unilateral, punitive and incoherent policy deviation and policy contradiction, Albarka and Savannah Airlines were also forced to close down with a loss of hundreds of jobs.

    “Chanchangi Airlines also lost millions of dollars as a result of this distorted policy,” Joji said.

    He said the AON was canvassing frequent maintenance of ageing aircraft, adding: “A well maintained old aircraft is better than a poorly maintained new aircraft.”

    “New aircraft are often purchased to add capacity to the existing fleet and not to immediately replace the fleet,’’ Joji said.

    He said the AON believed that imposing a ban on aircraft above 22 years old was not consistent with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Standard and Recommended Practice and wanted a review.

    Joji also said the AON believed it was wrong for the Senate Committee on Aviation to reach a conclusion on the causes of the Dana Air crash before the investigative report was concluded.

    “It seems to us in the industry that the committee had already made up its mind before the conclusion of investigation,’’ he said.

    Joji said the AON believed such an action could portray the industry in bad light.

    At the news conference were AON chairman, Dr Steve Mahonwu, the Assistant Secretary-General, Alhaji Mohammed Tukur and Mr. Paul Ib.

     

  • Nigeria loses Commonwealth scholarship slots

    Nigeria loses Commonwealth scholarship slots

    Three candidates, who won the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan (CSFP) Awards last year, could not make it to study abroad, the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education, Mr. MacJohn Nwaobiala, has said.

    Nwaobiala, who spoke on Monday night in Abuja at the opening of the “2012/2013 CSFP Awards’’ blamed the inability of the three candidates to study abroad on “avoidable reasons.’’

    Nwaobiala was represented by the Director, Federal Scholarship Board, Mrs. Hindatu Abdullahi.

    According to him, one of the candidates declined the award at the point of travel, while one award was withdrawn by the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission (CSC) for not meeting the English Language Proficiency as required by the university.

    The third award, he said, was withdrawn by the CSC because the scholar was rejected by two institutions and the third placement did not materialise.

    He said 16 candidates out of the 1,500 that competed for 32 slots given to Nigeria were finally selected by the CSFP to study abroad and three of that number lost the slots on “avoidable grounds.’’

    “It is sad that candidates who went through these tedious screening could afford to lose the awards on these avoidable grounds.

    “It is imperative, therefore, to advise candidates to be disciplined and focused during the exercise to qualify for nomination for the CSFP awards tenable in Commonwealth countries,’’ the News Agency of Nigeria quoted Nwaobiala as saying at the forum.

    In her remarks, The Minister of Education, Prof. Ruqayyatu Rufa’i, urged the Federal Scholarship Board to “embark on a tracking system’’ for the beneficiaries of all of its awards since inception.

    Rufa’i also urged the board to publish an impact assessment report on the beneficiaries.

    The minister, who was represented by Nwaobiala, said the report would enable the ministry to request for more funding from the government to better the lot of many “brilliant and indigent youth.”’

    She commended the objectives of the Commonwealth in promoting equal opportunity, gender equity and cultural exchange.

    Rufa’i promised the speedy release of results for the 2013 nominations.

  • Nigeria, US to boost economic, bilateral trade ties

    Nigeria and the United States yesterday renewed their commitments to increase economic, trade and investment relationship between both countries, especially in non-oil exports.

    The Minister of Trade and Investment, Olusegun Aganga, said given the current global economic meltdown, trade and investment remained the only potent tool for achieving sustainable and inclusive economic growth globally.

    Aganga, who spoke at the Seventh US-Nigeria Trade and Investment Agreement Council Meeting in Abuja, said there was a need for Nigeria and the US to deepen their trade and investment relations, especially in the areas where both countries have comparative and competitive advantage.

    The US-Nigeria Trade and Investment Agreement (TIFA ) was signed in 2000. It established the framework for structured dialogue on Trade; Intellectual Property Rights; flow of investment, as well as partnership for cooperation between the economic operators of the two countries.

    Aganga said: “All over the world, presidents and policy makers have agreed that there is only one tool that can lead to sustainable and inclusive economic growth. That tool, is trade and investment.

  • Terrorism is war against Nigeria, says DG SSS

    Terrorism is war against Nigeria, says DG SSS

    The Director-General of the State Security Service (SSS), Mr. Ekpeyong Ita, has described the ongoing terrorists’ insurgency in the country as a war against the Nigerian state.

    He, however, hoped that with the combined efforts of the nation’s security agencies and cooperation by the public, the nation would win the war.

    Ita appealed to the media and the public to partner the security agencies in the fight against terrorism, noting that terrorists depend on publicity to sustain their attack against the people.

    “Publicity by the media is the oxygen needed by the terrorists to sustain the attack on the Nigerian state and give prominence to their activities,” he said.

    Speaking at a security training programme for reporters in Abuja yesterday, the SSS boss said the attacks by the insurgent groups notwithstanding, the security agencies have been able to check a good number of the groups’ offensive.

    According to him, the primary intention of the terrorists is to cause division and disaffection in the society and create fear in people.

    He hoped that with the modest success recorded by the security agencies so far, the war against terrorism would soon be over.

    Ita said it was regrettable that while the Western countries are fighting externally-sponsored terrorism, Nigeria is fighting terrorism from within.

    The SSS chief noted that of the three persons declared w anted by the security agencies, one of them had been killed, while another, whose identity is still being scrutinised, is already in custody.

    He said a web is being built around the third wanted person by the security agencies, adding that his arrest is only a matter of time.

    “I can assure you that very soon, we shall have him as our guest. We are not overwhelmed, we will never be overwhelmed and we can never be overwhelmed. We are on top of the situation. The situation is not out of control,” Ita said.

    He urged the media to be circumspect in the handling of information given them by members of the terror groups, saying the motive is to create chaos, fear and division among the public.

    Ita pleaded with reporters to contact the spokespersons of the security agencies and joint task forces for clarification on sensitive information.

    The Nigerian government and the European Union (EU) have agreed on areas of partnering in the war against terrorism in Nigeria.

    The EU counter terrorism coordinator, Mr. Gilles de Kerchave, met with the Minister of State for Defence, Mrs. Olusola Obada, in her office yesterday to finalise the arrangement.

    Obada listed the areas in which Nigeria is seeking assistance to include intelligence gathering; training anti/counter terrorism; training on arms/ammunition and improvised explosive devices; training on Improvised Explosive Devised disposal; counter improvised explosive devices training; and training on counter improvised explosive technology.

     

     

     

     

     

  • Determination of whether a state is a littoral state within Nigeria is a question of fact-2

    As the plaintiff is no longer a littoral state and as it has no Maritime Territory, the 76 oil wells which now lie offshore within another maritime territory not that of the plaintiff cannot be attributed to the plaintiff. In order that any Nigerian littoral state may be entitled to the attribution of any off-shore oil field/well within the 200 meters Isobath and the derivations therefrom, the oil field/well must lie off-shore but within the state’s Maritime Territory which means that the state itself must abut and/or lie contiguous or proximate to the sea and have a Maritime Territory up to the 200 meters Isobath.

    The Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission did not demarcate any boundary at the August 2008 Inter-Agencies Kano retreat. The plaintiff would have remained a littoral state if the effort made by President Olusegun Obasanjo to retain the western part of Bakassi Peninsula in Nigeria had succeeded. The plaintiff would have retained the direct access to the sea. The 1st defendant emphasized

    1. The letter dated 4th January 2005 addressed to the former President Olusegun Obasanjo caption “Akwa Ibom/Cross River Interstate Maritime Boundary”.

    2. The letter dated 31st October 2006 on the political solution in respect of oil wells between Cross River State/Akwa Ibom State/Rivers State were based on the negotiation and expectation that the western parts of the Bakassi Peninsula would be retained as a Nigerian Territory. The International Court of Justice judgment was delivered in 2002. The Greentree Agreement between Nigerian and Cameroon governments was signed on June 12, 2006 while handing over of the entire Bakassi Peninsula was eventually completed on the August 14, 2008. There is now in existence a National Boundary Commission 2008 Map showing the seven littoral states in Nigeria after the handover of Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon of which the plaintiff is not one of them. The status of the plaintiff was changed by the ICJ judgment which also disentitled the plaintiff from deriving benefits from the 76 oil wells which now belong to the 2nd defendant.

    The 1st defendant raised the following issues for determination –

    1. Whether there had been an agreement between the parties upon which the 1st defendant could be stopped from resiling.

    2. Whether the role played by the 1st defendant at her Inter-Agency Retreat held in Kano in August 2008 could be interpreted as a usurpation of the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the court.

    3. Whether from the combined effects of the judgment of the International Court of Justice and the judgment of this court in Suit No. SC.124/1999 which is reported as A-G Gross River State v. A-G Federation & anor (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt.947) Pg.71, the plaintiff has a seaward boundary, estuarine sector or maritime boundary to entitle it to oil wells located off shore.

    The 2nd defendant, Attorney-General Akwa Ibom State adopted and relied on documents as follows – 2nd defendant’s 1st Amended Statement of Defence deemed filed on 14/5/2012; the witnesses statement of Okokon Essien and Augustine Dominic Odokwo the Akwa Ibom State Surveyor-General and Director of Civil Litigation of the Ministry of Justice for and on behalf of the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant’s Final Written Address in disputing the claim of the plaintiff to the attribution of 76 oil wells to Akwa Ibom State.

    According to the brief facts of the 2nd defendant’s case, these 76 oil wells are located offshore the coast of Nigeria to which the plaintiff – the Cross River State represented by the Attorney-General of the State lays claim for the purpose of the payment of 13% derivation revenue pursuant to Section 162(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. The statement of claim of the plaintiff captions the bone of contention in this suit as follows –

    “This unilateral removal of the plaintiffs name among the beneficiaries of the 13% derivation fund and the recalcitrance of the 1st defendant to change the position culminated in the filing of this case.”

     

    As at the time of the institution of this suit, the controversial 76 oil wells were and are still attributed to Akwa Ibom State represented by the 2nd defendant. The Inter-Agency meeting of the Revenue Mobilization and Fiscal Commission held in August 2008 followed and relied on the 2008 littoral states maritime boundaries delineations by the National Boundary Commission. The letter of the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission to the Accountant General of the Federation in March 2009 forwarding the 2009 Revised 13% Derivation Indices for the payment of Derivation funds to littoral states omitted the name of Cross River State. It was decided at the RMAFC Inter-Agency meeting of the 15th April 2008 that in line with the National Boundary Commission Littoral States boundaries delineations

    The offshores oil wells will be attributed to the littoral states jointly by all the agencies using the co-ordinates to be supplied by the Department of Petroleum Resources under the supervision of the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission.”

    The RMAFC Inter-Agency Report was produced in August 2008. By virtue of Section 6(1)(b) of the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission Act Cap R7 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, the RMAFC is empowered to-

    a. “Monitor the accruals to and disbursement of revenue from the ‘Federation Account and review from time to time, the revenue allocation formulae and principles in operation to ensure conformity with changing realities.

    b. Section 6(2)(b) of the Act also gives the RMAFC the power to demand and obtain regular and relevant information data or returns from any government agencies.”

    On the other hand, Section 7(c) of the National Boundary Commission Act Cap N10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 gives the National Boundary Commission the power to –

    a. Define and delimitate boundaries between states, local government areas or communities in the Federation and between Nigeria and her neighbours in accordance with delimitation instrument or document established for that purpose.

    At the RMAFC Inter-Agency Meeting of 15th April 2008, Cross River State was factually affirmed as a non-littoral state in Nigeria sequel to the judgment of the International Court of Justice in 2002 in the Cameroon/Nigeria Boundary dispute.

    The 2nd defendant gave the qualification of a littoral state, whether in Nigeria or anywhere in the world or whether a sovereign country or a state in a federation. Such state must have a territory which must abut or be contiguous to the sea; it must be possible to have direct access to the sea from the state without passing through any other state’s territory. Sequel to the judgment of the International Court of Justice delivered in 2002 and the ultimate execution in August 2008, Cross River State became landlocked and no part of its territory is contiguous to nor abuts the sea. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney-General of Cross River State v. Attorney-General of the Federation and one other (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt.947) Pg.71 pronounced that Cross River State has no maritime boundary with Akwa Ibom State. The 2nd defendant highlighted that prior to the judgment of the International Court of Justice, Cross River State qualified as a littoral state because as at that time it had access to the sea through the Bakassi Peninsula and the estuarian part of the inland waters; the “Cross River”. The Cross River State used to claim a riparian territory abutting the sea through the peninsula and the estuary which then were part of Nigeria.

    The Bakassi Peninsula lies contiguous to the sea while the Cross River estuary empties into the sea. The fact of Bakassi Peninsula and the Cross River Estuary being part of Cross River State was the sole qualification and reason for being adjudged as a Nigeria littoral state. The National Boundary Commission 2008 Maritime Boundary Map did not reflect Cross River State as a littoral state. The 2nd defendant maintained that by virtue of Cross River State not being a littoral state and therefore not having any maritime territory, the 76 oil wells which are the subject matter of dispute in this suit and which lie offshore, within a maritime territory cannot be attributed to Cross River State. For any Nigerian littoral state to be entitled to the attribution of any offshore oil field/well within the 200 meters isobaths, the oil field/well must be offshore but within the State’s maritime territory which means that the state itself must abut and/or lie contiguous or proximate to the sea and have a maritime territory up to the 200 metres isobaths or as the case may be in some circumstances have a riparian territory abutting the sea.